M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.

1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether when admittedly urban land is owned by two co-owners and has been partitioned between them, a joint assessment in respect of the entire land is permissible under the provisions of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1986.

2. The total area of the urban land in question is 6 grounds and 1851 sq.ft. On the finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax in assessment proceedings, he came to the conclusion that local enquiries disclosed that two families, namely, Thiru T.R. Karunakaran and Brothers and Thiru T.G. Srinivasan and brothers were separately enjoying the properties in question and the rent from the properties was also shared by the two families as also the municipal assessment stands jointly in the names of the two families. However, the assessing authority held that there was no separate enjoyment by the members of the two families and he, therefore, proceeded to assess the properties in question jointly in favour of the two families. He then proceeded to assess the tax which was fixed at Rs. 1617/- for fasli year payable from 1.7.1971.

3. An appeal came to be filed by both the branches of the families before the Land Tax Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli. A specific ground was taken in the appeal memo that the Assistant Commissioner ought to have suggested the two sets of owners individually having regard to the partition deed and the joint purchase. It is not in dispute that S.No. 2079 having an area of 1 ground and 1333 sq.ft. was the subject of a joint purchase by both the families (together by a sale deed dated 24.8.1952. The other S.No. 329 which was already owned by the two families has been partitioned by metes and bounds. The area of S.No. 329 is 5 ground and 518 sq.ft.

4. The Appellate Authority, however, does not seem to have gone into the question as to whether a joint assessment could be made or not but allowed the appeal partly in so far as the quantum of assessment is concerned. This order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the appellants herein in a writ petition filed in this Court which, however, came to be dismissed summarily with the observation that the dismissal of the writ petition does not prevent the question of partition being gone into for the subsequent assessments. This order is challenged in this appeal by the appellants.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that in respect of the property which is already partitioned, the two sets of owners were holding the properties independently in their own right and the Urban Land Tax Authority did not have any jurisdiction to assess tax on land which is not owned by either of the two families. In our view, so far as the property which is already partitioned is concerned, this contention has to be accepted. The charging provision in the Act is Section 5 which reads as follows:

Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be levied and collected for every fasli year commencing from the date of commencement of this Act, a tax on each urban land (hereinafter referred to as the urban land tax) from the owner of such urban land at the rate specified in the Schedule.

6. The provisions in Section 5 will show that the tax is to be levied on each urban land and is to be collected from the owner of such urban land. The phrase "each urban land" has been defined in Section 2(6) as follows:

'each urban land' means the urban land comprised in a survey number or a sub-division number.

7. Admittedly, notwithstanding the fact that the two separated portions of S.No. 329 are not separately recorded in the names of the two independent owners, the fact remains that the area which has fallen to the share of each of the two families in question in the partition dated 8.7.1939 in S.No. 329 will be the land which is comprised in S.No. 329. There is however, no jurisdiction in the assessing authorities to lev