JUDGMENT SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. - The above writ petition is filed by two registered Societies to direct the respondents to pay the yearly annuity amounts as per the bills submitted by 5th respondent and to pay interest @24% per annum on the delayed payment of annuity and damages and other appropriate orders. 2. The writ petition was numbered and thereafter listed before the Court in the caption of Admission. 3. The 8th respondent is impleaded as a party to the writ petition as per the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 dtd. 16/10/2023. 4. Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 7 filed objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and prayed the Court, to decide the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for 8th respondent also raised objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition. 5. The objections raised regarding maintainability of writ petition are that - (a) Writ petition is filed in representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of CPC on behalf of members of two Societies and the list of members is not filed. (b) Leave was not sought from the Court as required under Order I Rule 8 of CPC. (c) G.O.Ms.No.75 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M2) Department dtd. 14/4/2015 is an executive order issued without financial concurrence and hence, no rights can be claimed under the said G.O. (d) A separate Court fee must be paid for each of the members in the two petitioner societies. (e) Writ petition filed by the societies on behalf of its members without disclosing the details of members is not maintainable. 6. Heard Sri Unnam Muralidhar, learned senior counsel representing Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 7 and Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for 8th respondent. 7. Learned counsel for 8th respondent placed reliance upon the following judgments - a) Ramachander Sunda Vs. Union of India, (1999) 9 SCC 105 . b) Santosh and Ors. Vs. Registrar, AIR 2018 BOM 146 . c) Mota Singh and Ors. Vs.b State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 484 . d) In Re: Grain International and Ors., AIR 1981 AP 301 . e) Govindrao Atmaramji Warjurkar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 BOM 383 . 8. b) Santosh and Ors. Vs. Registrar, AIR 2018 BOM 146 . c) Mota Singh and Ors. Vs.b State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 484 . d) In Re: Grain International and Ors., AIR 1981 AP 301 . e) Govindrao Atmaramji Warjurkar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 BOM 383 . 8. Per contra, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would submit that since the cause of action is common and the interest of members of the society are common, single writ petition is maintainable. He would also submit that all the members of petitioners Societies are farmers, who gave their lands for construction of the capital. He would further submit that the prayer in the writ petition is to direct the Government agency to adhere to payment, as such technicalities need not be gone into. He would submit that, the members of the Societies are small and marginal. He also would submit that the government should act as a model or ideal litigant. 9. Learned senior counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon the following judgments: a) Ch.Raji Reddy and others Vs. APSRTC, Secunderabad and another, 2000 (5) ALD 352 . b) Mota Singh and Ors. Vs.b State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 484 . c) M.Thirupathi Reddy and others Vs. Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oilseeds Growers' Federation Ltd., Hyd. And others, 2000 (4) ALD 1 . d) Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and another, AIR 1984 Allahabad 46. e) Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharastra and others, (2020) 19 SCC 241 . f) Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246 . g) Chairman Tamilnadu Housing Board, Madras Vs. T.N.Ganapathy, (1990) 1 SCC 608 . h) Puran Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 204. i) Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal Khididas Barot others, (1974) 2 SCC 706 . j) Challamane Huchha Gowda Vs. M.R.Tirumala and another, (2004) 1 SCC 453 . 10. Now the points for consideration are: 1) Whether the writ petition filed by two registered Societies on behalf of its members, for the reliefs extracted supra, is maintainable? 2) Whether the Court fee of Rs.200.00 paid is sufficient? 3) Whether leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC is necessary? 11. 1st Petitioner-Society is a Registered Society under the Societies Registration Act vide Regd. No.261 of 2015. 2) Whether the Court fee of Rs.200.00 paid is sufficient? 3) Whether leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC is necessary? 11. 1st Petitioner-Society is a Registered Society under the Societies Registration Act vide Regd. No.261 of 2015. The 2nd Petitioner-Society is a Registered Society under the Societies Registration Act vide Regd. No.283 of 2016. Certificates of Registration of Societies are filed along with the writ petition. The rules and regulations of the Societies, as seen from the memorandum of Societies, would discern that the Societies are formed for the welfare of those farmers who have voluntarily came forward and gave their lands for the Andhra Pradesh Capital Land Acquisition Plan and to protect the rights and interests of farmers and their heirs etc. 12. The relevant clause of 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively are extracted hereunder: 13. In the affidavit, it was stated that members in 1st petitioner's society are 4750 and members in 2nd petitioner's- Society are 4864. Though it was mentioned in the affidavit that detailed names and list of each member is filed as material papers along with the writ petition, however, such list was not filed. On 30/10/2023, this Court heard the arguments in part regarding maintainability and during arguments, the respondent's counsel has pointed out about non-filing of list of members. On 1/11/2023, the list of members was filed vide USR No.112080 of 2023. The list of members, filed along with additional affidavit, does not give full particulars of each of the members; the extent of land pooled from each member; entitlement of annuity amount and date of agreement. 14. In the writ affidavit, it was stated that members of both the Societies are statutorily recognized under the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (for short "CRDA Act") and the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules, 2015 (for short "LPS Rules"). 15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent would contend that Rules have no statutory force. However, this Court is not going into that at this stage. 16. Regarding maintainability of writ petition by registered societies, full bench of Allahabad High Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar's case (supra-9), on reference answered as follows: Q.1. 15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent would contend that Rules have no statutory force. However, this Court is not going into that at this stage. 16. Regarding maintainability of writ petition by registered societies, full bench of Allahabad High Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar's case (supra-9), on reference answered as follows: Q.1. Whether an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights? A.1. -- The position appears to be that an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can file a petition under Article 226 for enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights-- (1) In case members of such an association are themselves unable to approach the court by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position ("little Indians"). (2) In case of a public injury leading to public interest litigation; provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a wayfarer or a busybody, i.e., it has a special interest in the subject-matter. (3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorize it to take legal proceedings on behalf of its members, so that any order passed by the court in such proceedings will be binding on the members. In other cases an association, whether registered or unregistered, cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 for the enforcement or protection of the rights of its members, as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights. Q.2. ... ... Q.3. In case the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether only one set of court-fees would be payable on such petition or each such individual petitioner has to pay court-fees separately? A.3. Where a single writ petition by an association or by more than one person is maintainable, then a single set of court-fees would be payable. Else, each petitioner is liable to pay separate court-fees. Q.4. In case answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the defect of misjoinder of several petitioners in the writ petition can be cured by requiring each such petitioner to pay separate court-fees? A.4. The technical defect of misjoinder of petitioners can, in the discretion of the Court, be cured by each petitioner paying separate court-fees. 17. Q.4. In case answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the defect of misjoinder of several petitioners in the writ petition can be cured by requiring each such petitioner to pay separate court-fees? A.4. The technical defect of misjoinder of petitioners can, in the discretion of the Court, be cured by each petitioner paying separate court-fees. 17. Learned senior counsel would contend that members of the petitioner societies are 'little Indians' and hence the writ petition filed by the societies on behalf of its members is maintainable. He also would contend that as per the rules and regulations, society can maintain writ petition on behalf of its members. 18. It is pertinent to mention here that nothing was pleaded in the affidavit that members of petitioners' associations are little Indians; that each member could not approach the Court due to poverty or economic conditions etc., For the first time during the arguments, learned senior counsel put forth such argument. Without pleading, this Court will not countenance such an argument. 19. However, the rules and regulations of the two societies, extracted supra, would disclose that the societies are formed to safeguard and protect the interests of its members. 'Protect interest' would mean and includes protection of interest of its members in all aspects including legal. In such an event as per Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar's case (supra-9) writ petition filed by the societies is maintainable. However, the affidavit, in the opinion of this Court, should disclose the names of members, extent of land and their entitlement. As pointed out supra, nothing was mentioned in the affidavit. 20. Pleadings, even in writ petition, play vital role. While pointing out importance of pleadings, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Singh and others Vs State of Haryana and others, AIR 1988 SC 2181 . observed as follows: "13. ... where a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Civil procedure code and a writ petition of a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, that a point or a written statement, the facts and no evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." 21. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of M.P. and another, AIR 2011 SC 1989 = (2011) 7 SCC 639 . the Hon'ble Apex Court observed the importance of pleadings as follows: "10. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted". Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. 11. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice". 22. Thus, this Court holds that writ petition filed by the Society or societies is maintainable. Since the list of members is not filed along with the writ affidavit, the list filed is not clear, petitioners shall file list of members, entitlement etc., separately. 23. The other objection raised by the respondents is maintainability of writ petition by paying single Court fee. 24. Since the list of members is not filed along with the writ affidavit, the list filed is not clear, petitioners shall file list of members, entitlement etc., separately. 23. The other objection raised by the respondents is maintainability of writ petition by paying single Court fee. 24. The Court fee payable in a writ petition has been provided in Article 11(s) of Schedule II of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "CF Act"). Sec. 4 of CF Act adumberates that no document which is chargeable with fee under the Act shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in, or acted on or furnished by, any Court including the High Court .. 25. Sec. 3(9) of the General Clauses Act describes document. "Document shall mean any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of them means intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidnce of the matter". 26. An application supported by a verification and a solemn affirmation or affidavit is document, which was observed in Upendranath Vs. Hema Chandra, AIR 1933 Cal 160. Thus, writ petition (affidavit) is document within the definition of Sec. 4 of CF Act. Requisite Court fee needs to be paid. 27. Court fee payable as per Article 11(s) of Schedule II in respect of petition to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ other than Hebeas Corpus or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is "one hundred rupees". 28. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India made Writ proceedings Rules 1977 to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 29. It is apt to extract Rule 4A of the Andhra Pradesh Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 here: "4A. Two or more persons having a common question of or persons having common cause of action may join in a single writ petition paying a single set of court fee." 30. As per Rule 4A of the Rules 1977, common questions or cause of action is sine qua non to file writ petition by two or more persons by paying single set of Court fee. 31. As per Rule 4A of the Rules 1977, common questions or cause of action is sine qua non to file writ petition by two or more persons by paying single set of Court fee. 31. A Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Grain International's case, while answering the reference, placed reliance upon Mota Singh Vs. State of Haryana (supra-3), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: "Having regard to the nature of these cases where every owner of a truck plying his truck for transport of goods has a liability to pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action." So too in this case each one of the petitioners, whose vehicle transporting rice or broken rice was stopped by a particular check post officer on a particular day, would be entitled to question that particular action in relation to his goods." 32. Learned single Judge of the composite High Court in Ch.Raji Reddy and others Vs. the APSRTC, Secunderabad and another, 2000 (5) ALT 157 . while not following the judgment in Tirupathi Reddy Vs A.P.Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd., 2000 (4) ALD 1 . held as follows: "Unless the petitioners in between themselves have a jural relationship, even if they challenge the same order, it will not amount to having same cause of action. The impugned order may be one, but cause of action to the petitioners definitely is separate of each other. One's cause of action is not dependent on another's cause of action". Eventually, directed the petitioners therein to pay Court fee individually. 33. The contention of the learned senior counsel that cause of action is common in the writ petition and hence single Court fee paid is sufficient, in the opinion of this Court, falls to ground. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel in Tirupathi Reddy's case was considered by another learned single judge and eventually directed the petitioners therein to pay Court fee. 34. The case at hand, two registered societies on behalf of its members filed the writ petition. The common cause pleaded by the learned senior counsel is release of annuity. Release of annuity is based upon the agreements entered into by each of the members of the societies. 35. 34. The case at hand, two registered societies on behalf of its members filed the writ petition. The common cause pleaded by the learned senior counsel is release of annuity. Release of annuity is based upon the agreements entered into by each of the members of the societies. 35. Land belonged to each member of societies, was taken in land pooling and separate agreements were entered into. Hence, the cause of action cannot be termed as common cause of action. Each member of petitioner-societies is getting benefit, if in case, the Court rules in favour of petitioners. When, each of the member gets benefit, a separate Court fee needs to be paid on behalf of each of member. 36. The purpose of CF Act is to facilitate the collection of Court fee from the litigant public in the Court and public offices. A fee may be charged for the privilege or benefit conferred, or service rendered or to meet the expenses connected therewith. Thus, fee is nothing but payment for some special privilege granted or service rendered. 37. The common cause of action referred to in Rule 4A of the Rules would means that the relief granted should be a joint relief and not resulting in individual benefit. 38. In a given case, a Trade Union raises a Charter of Demands like providing canteen facilities, payment of Washing Allowance etc., in such circumstances, the Trade Union would be espousing the cause of several persons having common interest or common cause of action. If such relief is granted it would not be an individual relief but a relief in common. 39. In converse, if a Trade Union is raising a dispute on behalf of its workmen claiming certain amounts due and payable by the Management to its workmen by filing applications under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, though it would appears to be common, however, it cannot be termed as common. In fact, each member or employee is getting benefit as per his/her entitlement. In such circumstances, the Court fee shall be payable individually. 40. The words "two or more persons" employed in Rule 4A of the Rules should be understood that two or more persons having jural relationship. In fact, each member or employee is getting benefit as per his/her entitlement. In such circumstances, the Court fee shall be payable individually. 40. The words "two or more persons" employed in Rule 4A of the Rules should be understood that two or more persons having jural relationship. As pointed out supra, case at hand, each member of the petitioners-Societies has distinct and separate interest and not common cause of action in the subject matter of the writ petition, as such they are liable to pay separate Court fee. 41. This scuttled difference will have to be looked into by the Registry at the time of scrutiny. 42. In view of discussion made supra, writ petition filed by the Societies is maintainable. However, each member of petitioners' societies shall pay Court fee separately. 43. The other objection is regarding leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC. 44. Though it stated in Paragraph-5 of the affidavit that writ petitioners sought leave of the Court Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the same will not apply to the facts of this case, since the petitioners in the writ petition are registered Societies, but not individuals. Any decision, be it, in favour of or against the Society, the same binds the members. Hence, leave is not necessary. 45. A number of authorities are cited by the learned counsel on either side. However, this Court considered only relevant authorities. 46. In view of the discussion supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall file list of members in detail. Petitioners shall pay deficit court fee(court fee based on members of association) within a period of 10 days from the date of this order.