Board of Revenue directed to decide pending case on available records where original records are lost.

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Naib Tehsildar (Respondents 3 and 4) to transmit original revenue records from 1991-1993 to the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur.

These records were essential for the adjudication of Revenue Case No. R-352/A-6/2003-04, which has been pending for over two decades.

The State counsel informed the Court that despite several requisitions, the records could not be produced, and it was officially reported on April 28, 2025, that the original records had been lost.

Consequently, the petitioners sought an expedited disposal of the pending matter based on available documentation.

1. Whether the Board of Revenue can be directed to decide a long-pending revenue case in the absence of original records that have been reported lost by the State.

2. Whether a time-bound direction for disposal is warranted given the case has been pending since the year 2003-2004.

The Court applied the principle of judicial efficiency and the right to a timely adjudication of disputes, noting that the unavailability of administrative records should not indefinitely stall quasi-judicial proceedings.

the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure the administration of justice by directing the Board of Revenue to reconstruct the case through secondary evidence—specifically, documents currently on record and copies provided by the parties—due to the loss of original records.

The Court observed the extreme delay in the proceedings, noting that the matter had remained undecided since 2003-2004 primarily due to the failure of lower revenue authorities to produce the record.

The Court found that the State's admission regarding the loss of records created a procedural deadlock that prejudiced the petitioners.

To resolve this, the Court reasoned that the Board of Revenue must proceed "notwithstanding the unavailability of the original records".

It determined that justice would be better served by settling the matter based on the "documents currently on record and any copies provided", thereby shifting the burden of verification to the available secondary evidence rather than waiting for non-existent originals.

The Court specifically ordered the Board to settle the matter using currently available documents and copies provided by the parties, bypassing the requirement for the lost original records from the Naib Tehsildar's office.