The Orissa High Court reiterates and applies the precedent that authorities possess the inherent power to reconstruct lost or destroyed records of pending cases based on authenticated copies, ensuring proceedings are not indefinitely stalled. This judgment upholds prior law (Arjun Padhi v. State of Orissa, AIR 1952 Orissa 237) and affirms its binding precedential value for all subordinate authorities and courts in Odisha, especially within the land revenue and tenancy proceedings context.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/24268/2025 of SANTOSH CHANDRA DEO @ MANASINGH BHRAMARBAR RAY Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010594312025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate authorities and persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Arjun Padhi v. State of Orissa (AIR 1952 Orissa 237) |
| Type of Law | Administrative law; Procedural law; Land revenue and tenancy proceedings |
| Questions of Law | Whether a public authority can reconstruct lost records of a pending case based on authenticated copies and proceed accordingly? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Arjun Padhi v. State of Orissa, AIR 1952 (Orissa) 237 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Inherent powers of courts/authorities to reconstruct lost judicial records; effect and validity of reconstructed files |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner’s OLR case, filed in 1976, remained pending for over 49 years without disposal because the records were untraceable. Despite directions from the appellate authority to the Tahasildar to dispose of the case, procedural paralysis continued due to loss of records. The writ petition sought directions to reconstruct and proceed with the matter. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate authorities and revenue officers in Odisha; applicable in the context of case records lost or destroyed |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and quasi-judicial authorities in India; potential reference for courts facing lost file situations |
| Follows | Arjun Padhi v. State of Orissa (AIR 1952 Orissa 237) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court expressly reaffirms that authorities have an inherent power to reconstruct lost case records on the basis of authenticated copies, per established precedent.
- Reinforces that delay or non-disposal of pending cases due to lost records is not permissible; prompt reconstruction and disposal must occur.
- Lawyers can use this decision as binding authority to overcome administrative inaction caused by missing case files.
- Clarifies procedural requirements: the party must provide available authenticated copies, and the officer must treat the reconstructed file as the original for continuation of proceedings.
- Establishes a concrete three-month compliance timeline for disposal post-reconstruction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the inordinate delay in the disposal of the OLR Case No. 51/76, pending since 1976, solely attributed to the loss of records.
- Citing its own precedent in Arjun Padhi v. State of Orissa (AIR 1952 Orissa 237), the Court reaffirmed that when a record is lost or destroyed, the Court or Authority possesses inherent powers to reconstruct the record using authenticated copies.
- The reconstructed file, as per established law, holds the same force and legal efficacy as the original records.
- The Court applied this principle, holding that administrative authorities cannot indefinitely stall adjudication for want of original files and must act by reconstructing and proceeding expeditiously.
- Detailed directions were issued for the production of authenticated copies and the fixation of a clear timeline for the authority to act.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The case has remained pending for almost five decades due to loss of records.
- Despite appellate directions, the Tahasildar did not dispose of the matter, citing missing records.
- Sought a direction to reconstruct the records and proceed with final disposal.
Respondent (State)
- Did not dispute the loss of records or the factual situation.
- Participated through the Additional Standing Counsel; no substantive opposition recorded in the judgment regarding the requested relief.
Factual Background
The petitioner initiated OLR Case No. 51/76 in the year 1976 before the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad, district of Puri. Despite appellate directions from the Sub-collector in OLR Appeal No. 02 of 2009 to proceed with disposal, the Tahasildar failed to act, citing that the records of the original case were not traceable. The matter remained undecided for over 49 years, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief.
Statutory Analysis
The Court considered its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to issue directions to subordinate authorities. The judgment interpreted the administrative authorities’ inherent powers to reconstruct lost or destroyed records, as recognized in previous case law (Arjun Padhi v. State of Orissa, AIR 1952 Orissa 237). No specific statutory provision of the Orissa Land Reforms Act or similar legislation was discussed beyond procedural aspects.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions reported; the judgment is singular and unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court set a clear direction for a timeline: reconstruction of records and disposal of the case within three months of communication of the order.
- Required the petitioner to produce a certified copy of the judgment and available authenticated copies for reconstruction.
- Mandated that after reconstruction, the file be treated as the original judicial record.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows and reinforces the ratio laid down in Arjun Padhi v. State of Orissa (AIR 1952 Orissa 237).