( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2009 Bhaskar s/o. Ambadas Joshi and ors. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS. 95 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS. 96 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS. 97 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS. 98 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS. 99 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.100 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.101 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.102 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.103 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.104 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.105 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.106 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.107 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.108 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.109 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.110 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.111 of 2009 Shri D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 05.10.2009 ( 2 ) P.C. :- 1. These are Civil Revision Applications filed by the claimants in favour of whom awards under the Land Acquisition Act were passed. According to the applicants, they learnt about said award on 09.05.2009. Thereafter, they filed Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 17.06.2009. So, they are within limitation of six weeks. Along with the Reference Applications they sought time of one month for payment of Court fees, on the ground that the amount of award was not yet paid and some time is required for filing challan in the treasury and taking Court fee stamps. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected these applications on very same day on 19.06.2009 without giving reason and hence these Revision Applications are filed. 2. Heard Adv. Shri D.R. Jaybhar for the applicants and A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele for respondent/State. Adv. Shri Jaybhar relied upon Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Pushpadevi Giridharilal Agrawal and anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2004 (Supp.) Bom.C.R.934. In that case ( 3 ) it is held that when the petitioners are admitting their liability to pay Court fee and are even willing to pay Court fee, some time should have been given for payment of Court fees. This is more so in present case where proper reason is given and time sought of only one month which is reasonable. 3. Second case cited is Manjiri Rangnath Kulkarni and ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and anr., 2003 (3) Bom.C.R. 158. In that case also the Court held that reasonable time should be given for payment of Court fees, if proper reason is given. 4. In my opinion, in these cases, applications for time to pay court fee were rejected without assigning any reason. In the circumstances, some time ought to have been given. 5. In this view of the matter, these Civil Revision Applications are allowed on condition that the applicants shall pay entire Court fees within one month from today. If the Court fee is deposited within the stipulated time, the Reference is to be accepted and sent to the Reference Court ( 4 ) as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In case, the Court fee is not deposited within the time, the Civil Revision Applications shall stand dismissed. 6. The applicants shall pay costs of Rs. 500/- in each application to respondent/State as costs of these applications. 7. The Civil Revision Applications stand disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cra94.09