the assessing authority, based on the said documents, which according to the learned Government Pleader were not available before the assessing authority when Ext.P5 assessment order was passed, or even before the 2nd and 1st respondents (appellate and revisional authorities respectively) when Ext.P6 and P7 orders were passed. In any view of the matter, Ext.P5 is not at all a 'speaking order', but a sterio-typed one, with manual insertion of the figures thereunder. Passing of such orders by the assessing authorities has been deprecated by this Court on many an occasion including in Tharu Vs. Tahsildar [2003 (1) KLT 219] . Ext.P3 occupancy certificate has been issued in the joint names of the petitioners; which however cannot be taken as a ground to arrive at a finding that the buildings are owned jointly. On coming to Ext.P7 Revisional order, the reason given is something more, i.e., placing reliance on the directions given by the Government, holding that the agreement should have been executed on a prior date to the date of permit. Pointing out that Ext.P3 agreement for construction was executed after Ext.P2 permit obtained in 1995 cannot be a valid reason at all. To put it short, the respondents were improvising the case from the stage of 'non speaking' order, to the appellate and revisional orders, offering a new grounds and explanations; which however are not sustainable on merits. What is to be looked into is the clear mandate under the statutory
