THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 22044 of 2006 Oral order: Assailing the inaction of respondent No.2 to 4 in responding to the complaint lodged by the petitioner and allowing respondent No.5 to withdraw the compensation amount awarded in O.P. No.250 of 1997 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, without any manner of right, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and respondent No.5 are claimants in the above O.P. The petitioner that respondent No.5, who is claimant No.16 has no title or right over the acquired land, and as such, he is not entitled to any compensation, and it is his grievance that even though he lodged a complaint before respondent Nos. 2 to 4 no action thereon had been taken. Hence, he seeks appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The admitted case of the petitioner is that himself and respondent No.5 are claimant Nos. 2 and 16 respectively in O.P. No.250 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, who by order dated 25.01.2006 answered the reference as follows: a) Claimant Nos. 7 to 12 together are entitled to claim 25% share in respect of the compensation in rspect of 0.35 gts. of land in Sy. No. 98 of Mallapur village. b) Claimant No. 16 is entitled to claim 50% share in the compensation amount in respect of the said land. c) Claimant No. 17 to 21 together are entitled to claim 25% share in the compensation amount in respect of the said land. d) The claims of claimant No. 4, the Commissioner, Kapra Municipality, Kapra; claimt No. 5, the MRO, Uppal Mandal; claimant No. 6, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad, in respect of the land acquired are rejected. e) The claims of claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 13 to 15 are also rejected. Respondent No.5, who is claimant No. 16 in the O.P. is seeking to execute the orders passed in the O.P. Now the petitioner states that respondent No. 5 is not entitled to any compensation, and that even though he brought this fact to the notice of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in his representation dated 15.10.2006, no action thereon had been taken, and it is his grievance that if respondent No.5 is allowed to execute the decree and claim the amounts, then he will be put to loss. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted, for once a competent Court adjudicates a matter and passes orders crystallizing the claims of the respective parties, the remedy of the party who is aggrieved by such orders, is to question the same in appropriate proceedings before higher forums, but not making representation to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are also parties in the O.P. In that view of the matter, the inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in taking action on the representation of the petitioner cannot be faulted. There is no merit in the writ petitioner and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies available to him in law against the orders passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, in the aforementioned O.P. No costs. The writ petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 8th June, 2009 KSR