THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.34 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the orders in I.A.No.351 of 2001 in O.P.No.14 of 1999, dated 28-06-2001, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. The land of the appellant and his father Malla Reedy was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant and his father sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement. On such reference the petition was numbered as O.P.No.1238 of 1982, but by mistake, the O.P. was registered only in the name of the father of the appellant as the sole claimant. Therefore, on a petition I.A.No.603 of 1996 filed by the appellant, the Court ordered to register a separate O.P.No.14 of 1999 in the name of the appellant. Although the O.P. was registered in 1999, the petitioner did not evince interest, therefore, confirming the Award, ex parte order was passed on 20-02-2001. The appellant filed I.A.No.351 of 2001 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. to set aside the said ex parte order. As the said petition was dismissed by orders dated 28-06- 2001, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel Sri V.Manohar for the appellant. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was suffering from fever on account of which, he could not attend the Court on 20-02-2001. His Advocate also could not be present due to his personal works. He further submitted that the absence of the appellant was not wilful and that there was sufficient cause for the same. He further submitted that the appellant lost his land in acquisition and hence it cannot be said that he is not interested in the matter. He further submitted that the O.P. registered in the name of his father ended in enhancement of compensation in respect of his father’s share. He therefore submitted that the O.P. is liable to be restored as otherwise the appellant would suffer irreparable injury. It is seen from the order that the appellant did not file the claim petition although it was pending ever since 1999 and that the matter had undergone several adjournments. Having regard to the averments of the appellant in his affidavit filed in support of the I.A. that due to ill-health he could not attend the Court on 20-02- 2001 and that his Advocate also could not attend the Court due to his personal work and the said averments not having been denied by the respondent, I am of the view that there was sufficient cause for the absence of the appellant on the appointed date. Further, the matter pertains to grant of compensation in respect of the share of the appellant in the land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not in dispute that O.P.No.1238 of 1982 registered in the name of his father was ordered and it appears that compensation was enhanced. The claim for compensation is a statutory right conferred on the claimants, who are deprived of the land as a measure of compulsory acquisition. It is well settled that no person shall be deprived of his property except by due process of law and award of adequate compensation is a facet of due process of law. In the peculiar facts of this case wherein the share of the father was enhanced in O.P. No.1238 of 1982 and that the claim of the appellant was not registered in the same O.P., in the interest of justice I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for consideration of his claim on merits. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order in I.A.No.351 of 2001, dated 28-06-2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, O.P.No.14 of 1999 is directed to be restored and heard on its own merits. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 19th February, 2010. kvr/skmr