Court recognized the inherent power to reconstruct lost records based on authenticated copies, mandating efficient case resolution by public authorities.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad (Opposite Party No.4) in the district of Puri for disposing of the OLR Case No.51/76, because, in spite of direction given by the Sub-collector, Puri (Opposite Party No.3) in OLR Appeal No.02 of 2009 to the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad (Opposite Party No.4), the said Opposite Party No.4 is not disposing of the said OLR Case No.51/76 only for the reason that, the records of OLR Appeal No.02 of 2009 are not traceable in its office, which is well evident in the order passed by the Sub- collector, Puri (Opposite Party No.3) in OLR Appeal No.02 of 2009. Because, in that order, it has been specifically stated that, the records of the OLR Case No.51/76 in the office of the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad (Opposite Party No.4) are not traceable.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

3. The OLR Case No.51/76 was filed by the petitioner in the year 1976. In the meantime, more than 49 years have already been passed, still then, the said OLR Case No.51/76 filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of by the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad(Opposite Party No.4) on the ground that, the records of the said OLR Case No.51/76 are not traceable in its office.

4. Law on this aspect has already been clarified by this Court in a case between Arjun Padhi vrs. State of Orissa : reported in AIR 1952 (Orissa) 237 that,

“when the record of a pending case is lost or destroyed, the Court or Authority has inherent power to reconstruct its records on the basis of its authenticated copies and the reconstructed records shall have the same efficacy/force as that of the original record.”

5. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad (Opp. Party No.4) is required to be directed to reconstruct the records of OLR Case No.51/76 on the basis of the authenticated copies thereof supplied by either of the parties of the said OLR Case No.51/76 or through other sources and to act upon the same in disposing of that OLR Case No.51/76 as expeditiously as possible as per law.

6. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

7. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest.

8. The Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad (Opp. Party No.4) is directed to take steps for reconstruction of the records of OLR Case No.51/76 on production of the copies thereof by either of the parties of the same including the petitioner and after its reconstruction to treat the re-constructed records as original records of that OLR Case No.51/76 and to proceed with the same for disposing of the same as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and others, if any, within a period of three months from the date of communication of the copy of this judgment.

9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad(Opposite Party No.4) on dated 22.09.2025 and to file the certified copy of this judgment for re-construction of the records of OLR Case No.51/76 on the basis of the directions made above in this judgment and the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad(Opposite Party No.4) shall comply the above directions with letter and spirit.

10. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment immediately to the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad(Opposite Party No.4)

11. As such, the writ petition is disposed of finally.