Revision Proceedings Cannot Be Abated Due to Lost Records; Revisional Courts Must Reconstruct Records to Decide Title on Merits

The dispute involves plot numbers in Village Takipur, Aligarh, following consolidation operations that began in 1973.

Predecessors of both the petitioners and respondents filed cross-objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (U.P.C.H.) Act, 1953.

After several rounds of litigation, the High Court, in Om Prakash v. DDC (Writ-B No. 710 of 1980), remanded the title revision back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) to decide the matter afresh on merits.

Upon remand, the DDC passed an order on February 3, 2025, abating (terminating) the revision proceeding on the grounds that the original records were unavailable (weeded out or lost) and neither party had produced sufficient documents to reconstruct the file.

The petitioners challenged this abatement as arbitrary and passed without a proper hearing.

1. Whether a title revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act can be abated solely on the ground of non-availability or loss of original records.

2. Whether the revisional court is obligated to follow a specific procedure for the reconstruction of records before dismissing a case for lack of evidence.

The court primarily applied the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the reconstruction of lost or destroyed records.

Precedent Ram Khelawan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1987 RD 350) established that when records are lost, parties must be given the "fullest opportunity" to provide certified or even uncertified copies (if not objected to) to reconstruct the file.

Precedent Lochan v. D.D.C., Mathura (2015 (128) RD 381) held that consolidation litigation is not voluntary but forced upon landowners by law, necessitating a resolution on merits.

Under Section 151 of the CPC, the judiciary has an inherent duty to reconstruct files that are lost, burnt, or misplaced through no fault of the parties.

The High Court observed that the DDC failed to afford a "proper opportunity" of hearing to the petitioners before abating the case.

Following the Ram Khelawan principle, the DDC should have invited all available documentation—including statements recorded in previous judgments—to reconstruct the proceedings rather than terminating the litigation.

The court emphasized that because consolidation is a mandatory legal process, the authorities cannot abdicate their duty to decide title disputes merely due to administrative record-keeping failures.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated February 3, 2025, and remitted the matter back to the DDC/Revisional Court with directions to restore the revision, reconstruct the record, and decide the case on merits within three months.