MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition involves a question of interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 10, 12 and 16 of the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and Rules 8, and 11 of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules'). The Assistant Director, Lands and Buildings Tax, Jodhpur, respondent No. 4 assessed the property of the petitioner Mohanlal and his brother Kanhaiya Lal for the assessment years, 1973 -74, 1974 -75, 1975 -76 and 1976 -77. In the order sheet order was passed on 3 -6 -1976. The order sheet bears the signatures of the petitioner Mohanlal. The order was subsequently drawn up in the prescribed form and that order was not served on the petitioner but it said to have been served on one Vishnudutt alleged to be the son of the petitioner as per the report of the Process Server which has been denied by the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that Vishnudutt is not his son. According to the petitioner a stranger other than Vishnudutt delivered the copy of the order of assessment in the prescribed form to the petitioner on 5 -7 -1976. Having received the assessment order in the prescribed form the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Jodhpur, Appellate Authority under the Act. The appeal was dismissed inter -alia on the ground that the appeal is barred by time. According to the Appellate Authority the date of order is 3 -6 -1976 and from that date appeal has not been filed within 30 days. On merits also the Appellate Authority decided the appeal and found that the appeal has no substance. The petitioner thus preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 13 -1 -83 dismissed the revision solely on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was time barred and so was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to what should be taken to be the date of the order under Section 16 of the Act? For proper appreciation and adjudication of the controversy involved in the present writ petition it will be profitable to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules: