JUDGMENT :

MEHTA, J.

1. These five intra-court appeals involve common controversy on facts as well as in law and hence the same are being decided together by this judgment.

2. The appellants herein, applied for allotment of duplex houses in the Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner under the Self Financing Scheme floated by the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board, Bikaner under two categories:-(1) the Higher Income Group (‘HIG’) & (2) the Middle Income Group (‘MIG’). All the appellants herein were successful in the draw of lots and the respondents issued reservation letters dated 23.10.2013 in favour of the appellants-writ petitioners requiring them to deposit the total amount in four equal installments as per the schedules below:-

3. The appellants herein claim to have satisfied the total demand raised by the respondent Housing Board within the stipulated time period provided by the Board. However, construction of the colony could not be completed within the stipulated period and the respondent Housing Board, imposed penalty upon the contractor for the delay in completion of the project.

4. The Rajasthan Housing Board, issued allotment letters dated 15.10.2015 to the appellants-writ petitioners as per the schedule below, under the Rajasthan Housing Board Disposal of Property Regulations, 1970 whereby, additional demand was raised over and above the amount already deposited with a stipulation that in the event of non-deposition of the additional demand within 30 days, the allotment made in favour of the applicant/s would be cancelled.

5. Aggrieved by the unjustified and unreasonable additional demand raised by the respondent Housing Board, the appellants-writ petitioners herein and other similarly placed persons, filed writ petitions to challenge the same before the learned Single Bench of this Court which were dismissed vide impugned orders dated 08.05.2019 and 06.05.2019 which are assailed in these appeals.

6. It is the common stance of the parties that the comprehensive pleadings and the entire bulk of relevant documents are available in the file of SBCWP No.13124/2015 : Om Prakash Jakhar Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein, no appeal has been preferred.

7. For justifying the additional demand, the respondent Housing Board placed reliance on the escalation clause in the scheme brochure. The petitioners raised a grievance that the escalation in cost could not be beyond 10%. However, the said grievance raised by the petitioners has been repelled with rejection of their Single Bench writ petitions vide the impugned orders dated 06.05.2019 and 08.05.2019 which are subject matter of these appeals.

8. Learned counsel Shri Rajesh Choudhary, representing the appellants–writ petitioners urged that the houses were constructed under the Self Financing Scheme and even while making the allotment, the developer i.e., Rajasthan Housing Board, was well aware about the cost escalation factors and the same had been accounted for while issuing the scheme brochure and proposing the estimated cost of project. The subsequent plea of the respondent Housing Board that the c