SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 979

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Tarini Gouda - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opposite Parties.
WP(C) No.33275 of 2024
Decided On : 13-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai. Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate

Records lost due to time can be reconstructed using authenticated copies, retaining their legal validity.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960 - Section 36-A - Reconstruction of records - The court affirmed the principle from Arjun Padhi Vs. State that lost or destroyed records can be reconstructed using authenticated copies, carrying the same legal force as original records. (Paras 4 and 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought reconstruction of the file of OLR Case No.8 of 1977 after the original records were lost due to the passage of time, asserting the need for the Rayati Patta based on prior final orders.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner's writ was found to have merit, leading to an order for reconstruction of the records.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Tahasildar can reconstruct lost records based on authenticated copies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tahasildar must reconstruct the records of OLR Case No.8 of 1977 using authenticated copies provided by the petitioner or alternative sources.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for record reconstruction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. records of case have been lost due to age. (Para 3)
3. court can reconstruct lost records. (Para 4 , 5)
4. writ petition allowed for reconstruction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directing Tahasildar, Ganjam (Opp. Party No.4) for reconstruction of the file of OLR Case No.8 of 1977 on the basis of the authenticated copies thereof supplied by the petitioner and to issue the Rayati Patta of the case land in favour of the petitioner as per the final order passed in that OLR Case No.8 of 1977.

3. Learned AGA for the State submitted on the basis of the letter dated 24.03.2025 issued by record keeper, Khalikote Tahasil to the Tahasildar, Khalikote that, “the records of OLR Case No.8 of 1977 under Section 36-A of the OLR Act has been wasted due to completion of 48 years and the question of tracing out of the same in future does not arise.”

4. Law has already been settled in a case between Arjun Padhi Vs. State 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, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision, the Tahasildar, Ganjam (Opp. Party No.4) is required to be directed to reconstruct the records of OLR Case No.8 of 1977 on the basis of the authenticated copies thereof supplied either by the petitioner or through other source and to act on the basis of previous orders passed in that OLR Case No.8 of 1977.

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

6. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed con contest.

7. The Tahasildar, Ganjam (Opp. Party No.4) is directed to take steps for reconstruction of the records of OLR Case No.8 of 1977 on production of the certified copy of this Order by the petitioner before him along with the authenticated copies of the records/order-sheets of OLR Case No.8 of 1977 and to comply the previous orders of OLR Case No.8 of 1977 as per law and to complete all the processes of the said OLR Case No.8 of 1977 within a period of 2 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this Order before him (Opp. Party No.4).

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top