Judgment :- 1. A partnership firm, represented by its Managing Partner, has moved this Court seeking inter alia , to declare that the proceedings of the respondent herein under Rule 8(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978, under which the land in excess of the ceiling area, has been declared in its hands, is illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It is said that it consisted of seven partners all belonging to one family, and as per the deed of partnership dated 2.12.1975, the net profit or loss has to be equally divided amongst the partners. The partnership, it is not in dispute, is in possession of a property constituting urban land of 5686 sq. metres. According to the petitioner, there are several structures, the total built up area being 721 sq. metres and the buildings upon the land, are used for residential purposes of the partners and their families. According to the petitioners, when divided equally amongst the partners, the vacant land in possession of the partners will not be in excess of the ceiling area, excepting an extent of 23.6 Sq. metres pertaining to one A. Rajagopal, a partner and the husband of the Managing Partner of the firm. 3. The above facts, including the facts, as alleged by the petitioner, are not seriously disputed in the counter affidavit. What is stated in the counter affidavit is, however, that the firm owns the following property:— Mylapore Block No. 34, R.S. No. 1646/12 measuring 5,486 Sq. metres and R.S. No. 1643/33 measuring 156 Sq. metres totalling in all 5,642 Sq. metres and that the partnership is not a registered firm and further that:— “The firm has originally sought for exemption to 892 Sq. metres of vacant land to ‘Ramana Kendra’. Subsequently, the petitioner has withdrawn her original application dated 13.9.1978 by their letter dated 8.9.1980. Accordingly, a report was sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, i.e., the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling), Mylapore recommending for the acquisition of excess vacant land measuring 3294 Sq. metres as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulat ion) Act, 1978. The first respondent, i.e., Government after scrutiny of records and as per provisions of the Act have rejected the exemption application of Picture Financiers. metres as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulat ion) Act, 1978. The first respondent, i.e., Government after scrutiny of records and as per provisions of the Act have rejected the exemption application of Picture Financiers. In their letter No. 77757/Q1/81-13, dated 9.9.83, the Government have ordered acquisition of the excess vacant land measuring 3294 Sq. metres under sections 9 to 11 of the Act. On receipt of this order, draft statement under section 9(1) and notice under Section 9(4) dated 24.9.84 issued by the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling), Mylapore along with the sketches, were served on the petitioner on 10.11.1984 for acquisition of excess vacant land.” There is a further statement in the counter affidavit in which it is alleged that the area of the property, as stated by the petitioner, is not correct and it is worked out as follows:— “Total area 5642 Sq. metres. 1. Built up area 748 Sq. met 2. Building Regulation area 500 Sq. met 3. Contiguous area 500 Sq. met. 4. Pathway 100 Sq. met. Total non vacant land 1848 Sq. metres. Total vacant land 3794 Sq. metres. Vacant land eligible to hold under Section 5(1)(i)(a) 500 Sq. metres. 3294 Sq. metres”. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that the Government has acquired the excess vacant land in the possession of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. 4. The relation of partnership, section 5 of the Indian Partnership Act says, arises from a contract and not from status. There are some consequences of the registration of a partnership, but it does not mean that without registration, the relation of partnership cannot be created. 4. The relation of partnership, section 5 of the Indian Partnership Act says, arises from a contract and not from status. There are some consequences of the registration of a partnership, but it does not mean that without registration, the relation of partnership cannot be created. In determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or is not a partner in a firm, regard shall be had to the real relation between the parties, as shown by all relevant facts taken together, and it is explained, that the sharing of profits or of gross returns arising from property by persons holding a joint or common interest in that property does not of itself make such persons partners and that the receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business, or of a payment contingent upon the earning of profits or varying with the profits earned by a business, does not of itself make him a partner with the persons carrying on the business. The concept of partnership is, however, shown in the definition thereof under Section 4 of the Partnership Act, which says, partnership is the relation between persons, who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting the view that since the relationship of partnership arises from contract and not from status, the concept of partnership law is that a firm is not an entity or a person in law, but only a compendious mode of designating persons, who have agreed to carry on the business in partnership. (See I.T. Commissioner v. G.P. Naidu & Sons AIR 1980 A.P. 158 @ 164). It is not a distinct legal entity apart from the persons constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate rights of its own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firms property or firms assets, all that is meant is property or assets in which all partners have a joint or common interest (See Messrs. Malabar Fishneries Co. v. Commissioner of I.T. A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 176 at 183). 5. Malabar Fishneries Co. v. Commissioner of I.T. A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 176 at 183). 5. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has defined a person, who is acknowledged as the holder of a property to include an individual, a family, a firm, a company or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. We have seen from the provisions of the Partnership Act that a partnership is a relation arising from a contract and section 4 of the Partnership Act has defined the partnership as compendious name given to the pe rsons, who have entered into partnership with one another as ‘partners’ and are collectively called ‘a firm’. Section 3(g) which has defined a person as above under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, has included a firm in the definition of a ‘person’, who is the holder of land and in all such provisions under Chapter III of the Act, where the extent of the ceiling area and provisions therefor are contemplated, a special mention is made to a firm. In sub-section (4) of section 5 thereof, it is s aid, where any firm or unincorporated association or body of individuals, holds vacant land in any urban agglomeration then, the right or interest of any person in the vacant land on the basis of his share in such firm or association or body shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person. 6. This provision is made in the obvious recognition of the relation of partnership between individuals, who are called partners, and collectively a firm including the fact that the firms profit or firms asset is property or asset in which all partners have a joint or common interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for resolution of all disputes as to the extent of the land held by the firm and how the partners have acquired the lands, when it is not in dispute that the respondent has proceeded to acquire the excess land in the possession of the firm, it has a duty to follow the command of the law as found in Section 5(4) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has however, attempted to justify the stand in the counter affidavit in this behalf, but has not been able to show any other method of determination of the excess vacant land in the hands of a person when that person is a firm, as indicated under section (4) of section 5 of the Act. In the computation of the land held by a firm or incorporated or non incorporated association of body of individuals, what is required to be done is that the vacant land is fictionally divided on the basis of the shares of the partners or members of the association or body, which is either incorporated or not incorporated amongst the partners and individuals and then to see whether there is any excess land with any of the partners or individuals. Land in excess of the ceiling area in the hands of each partner or individual alone can be acquired under the Act. The error of law in the impugned action of the respondent is so obvious that no further discussion in this behalf is necessary. The respondent has not taken care to abide by the law and proceeded to acquire the alleged excess land in the hands of the petitioner firm by some method, which is not recognised by law. The petition, for the said reason, has to succeed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the proceedings in Notice No. RC.A. 2/303/81, dated 7.11.1984 dated 24.9.1984 are quashed and the case is remitted to the Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, for a fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. However, on the facts of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.