1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR (Misc) Revision Application No. 666 of 2011 IN Writ Petition St. No. 20177 of 2010 Mukund Shyamlal Ghate and five others Vs.. State of Maharashtra and another ........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Mr. P. V. Vaidya, Advocate for the Applicants CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17th NOVEMBER, 2011. This revision application challenges the order dated 18th February, 2011, passed by the Taxing Officer in Writ Petition (ST) No. 20177/2010, holding that the relief sought by the petitioners is of individual nature and, therefore, each of the petitioners are liable to pay the court fee as on individual basis once they filed the present petition jointly. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Govindrao Atmaramji Warjurkar and another Vrs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1977 Mh.L.J. 320 and Article 1 (f) (ii) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It has been held that the petitioners’ have already paid Rs. 250/- and they are liable to pay deficit court fees of Rs. 1,250/-. 2 This petition challenges the order passed by the Reference Court in L.A. Case No. 1/A-65/06-07, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners’ are the LR’s of the original claimant. The order challenged is only one and, it was only one set of Court fee which was required to be paid. The reliance is placed on the decision of this Court cited (supra), however, in the said decision, the finding was recorded that there is no identity of business or the cause and each petitioner must be treated as seeking independent remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is not the position in the present case, it is the only one order which is being challenged. The petitioners’ are LR’s of original claimant and hence, said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the order dated 18th February, 2011 passed by the Taxing Officer is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners’ have already paid court fee. The office is directed to register the writ petition subject to the removal of all other objections. This Misc. Revision Application is disposed of. JUDGE Punde