M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of Board of Revenue, UP, opposite party No. 2, by which a revision application by the State, opposite party No. 1, filed Under Section 12 of the Vrihat Jot Kar Adhiniyam, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was allowed in the circumstances detailed below. The proceedings which came up before the Board of Revenue under the Act had been commenced by a notice served Under Section 7(2) of the Act upon Sri Chhattar Singh, the Manager and Mukhtiar -e -am of the Petitioner, calling upon the Petitioner to make a return on the ground that she Was liable to tax on the estimated annual value of the land held by her on 1 -7 -1964. The Petitioner's Manager and Mukhtiar -e -am signed and filed a return before the Assessing Authority at Etah. The Petitioner acted through her Mukhtiar -e -am throughout the assessment proceedings. No objection was taken to the return signed and filed by the Petitioner's Mukhtiar -e -am. The Petitioner's Mukhtiar -e -am also appealed against the order of the Assessing Authority. An objection was taken, for the first time, before the Additional Commissioner, Agra, functioning as the Appellate Authority Under Section 11 of the Act, that the Petitioner's appeal was not in proper form as it had not been signed by the Petitioner in accordance with the directions given in VJK Form 7, prescribed by Rule 16 of the Vrihat Jot Kar Rules. Rule 16 lays down that an "Appeal Under Section 11 to the Commissioner shall be filed in the case of - -(a) an order Under Section 8 in Form VJK..." Form VJK 7 contains merely the word 'signed', followed by a dotted line below the place meant for grounds and statement of facts in the from. After that, the form of verification is given as follows: I...., the Petitioner named in the above petition, do declare, what is stated therein including the Statement of Facts referred to in paragraph 6 is true to my best knowledge and belief. Sd.... A line is drawn across the page below the verification clause. Then occurs the note giving certain directions reproduced here: Note - -(1) The superfluous words in paragraphs 4 and 7 should be deleted. (2) The memorandum of appeal as well the verification should be signed - - (a) in the case of an individual by the individual himself/herself; (b) in the case of any other association, society/Sarvodaya Mandal or company by the principal officer thereof; and (c) in the case of a firm by a partner. The note is not part of the form. It only gives instructions about the way in which the form should be filled up. In other words, these instructions are, prima facie, only directory and not mandatory.
(2.) THE Appellate Authority held that Rule 16 of the Vrihat Jot Kar Rules could not override the provisions of Section 25 of the Act which reads as follows: 25. Appearance by authorised representative - - Any landholder, who is entitled or required to attend before any authority in connection with any proceeding under this Act, may attend either in person or through a duly authorised agent. We may observe that the Appellate Authority was in error in applying Section 25 to the question of signature and verification upon the memorandum of appeal. Section 25 deals with representation at the hearing. It only shows that the Appellant may be heard through a duly authorised agent. The Appellate Authority also pointed out that no objection had been taken to the Authority or competence of the Mukhtiar -e -am to sign or act on behalf of the Assessee before the Assessing Authority. It observed that there was nothing on record to show that Sri Chhattar Singh was not the duly appointed agent of the Assessee. The Appellate Authority, after overruling the preliminary objection, allowed the Assessee's appeal and sent back the case for reassessment by the Assessing authority in accordance with certain directions.
(3.) THE State then went up in revision to the Board of Revenue which set aside the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the Appellate Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction in dispensing with the "vital provision" directing that the memorandum of appeal and the verification clause must be signed by the Assessee. The question raised before us now is whether the Appellate Authority was acting within its jurisdiction in condoning the irregularity, if any and treating the memorandum of appeal as having been filed by the Petitioner.;