PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE present batch of special appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17. 2. 1999, made in writ petitions. In all these appeals a common question of law arises for consideration on similar facts. THErefore, all of these special appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) A joint writ petition was filed under the name and style of Mana Ram, joined by 100 other persons which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1451/97. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenged the challans dated 13. 3. 1997. By virtue of these challans a demand was raised against the petitioners for paying interest on the instalments which were paid by the petitioners in lieu of the land allotted to them under Rule 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1975' ). Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1975 provides for sale by special allotment of the land to the applicants. Considering the joint writ petition filed by Mana Ram and others, the learned Single Judge of this Court ordered that all those who have joined as the petitioners in the writ petition are required to pay separate court fees. On such orders being passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 23. 4. 1997, separate court fees was paid by the appellants. After payment of the court fees, notices of the writ petition were ordered to be issued to the respondents. While issuing notice this Court ordered that the petitioners should deposit the amount of instalments as ordered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1130/89 decided on 14. 1. 1997. By this order the respondents were required to accept the amount of instalments by which time the respondents had not raised any demand towards interest. It is the admitted case of the parties that such amount was paid by the appellants. The respondents appeared in response to the notices and filed reply to the writ petition. An objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition was raised by the respondents. It was to the effect that no joint writ petition was maintainable. In the face of the preliminary objection of the respondent State, the petitioners sought time and preferred separate writ petitions for and on behalf of all the petitioners. In the first instance such separately preferred writ petitions were not accompanied by the required court fees stamp. The contention of the appellants was that they have already paid the court fees pursuant to the orders of the court vide order dated 23. 4. 1997. Office placed these writ petitions in the defective category as no court fees was paid on individual writ petition.
(3.) IT was found that the defect of court fee was not liable to be condoned. Therefore, counsel for the appellants affixed the requisite court fees stamp on each of the writ petitions. The writ petitions were regularly registered. Learned Single Judge in his judgment held that the manner in which the joint writ petition has been filed and subsequently separate writ petitions have been filed and court fees has been paid, did not absolve the petitioners from the preliminary objection. The respondents' objection regarding maintainability of the joint writ petition was upheld. Learned Single Judge observed that there is not of force in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the State. Learned Single Judge observed that under Rule 13-A (5) (iii), which has been upheld by this Court, the respondents can charge interest at the rate of 18%. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the manner in which the petitions were dealt with by the learned Single Judge, as to the maintainability, they could not have been dismissed on that ground when under the orders of the Court the petitioner-appellants submitted the court fees at the initial stage and then at the subsequent stage of hearing separate writ petitions were preferred and separate court fees was paid. ;