S. U. B. Karalliyadde, J.

The Petitioner in the instant Application is a co-owner of the subject land to this Writ Application, and the other five co-owners are his siblings. The Petitioner states that his mother was a beneficiary of the Permit (P2(a)) issued under the Land Development Ordinance, No. 19 of 1935 (as amended) (the Ordinance) for a land in the extent of 1 Acres 1 Rood and 5 Perches and a Grant marked as P2(b) has been issued in the name of the Petitioner’s mother under Section 19(4) of the Ordinance. Owing to the two conditions stipulated in the Grant marked as P2(b), the land could not able to be divided equally among the Petitioner and his siblings and to remedy that situation, the Grant P2(b) was returned to the State and a new Grant bearing No. GR/21/025705 dated 08.02.2916 marked as P3 was issued in the name of the Petitioner’s mother for Lot 1651 of the Final Topo Plan No. 9 Inset No. 76 dated 15.09.1969 marked as P4 for the extent of 0.5934 Hectares. While the Petitioner and his siblings were in the process of dividing the said Lot 1651 among themselves, the notice dated 28.09.2016 marked as P5 was issued by the Divisional Secretary of Thamankaduwa (the 1^st Respondent) in terms of Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950 (as amended) (the Act) notifying that lands described in the list annexed to the notice (P7) will be acquired by the State for the purpose of expanding Kaduruwela alternative road. The Petitioner’s position is that, accordingly, the State has acquired certain portions of Lot 1651. The said acquired potions are shown as Lots 9086, 9087 and 9089 in the Survey General’s Plan marked as P6 prepared for the purpose of the acquisition. The Petitioner states that, according to the list marked as P7 and the Survey Plan marked as P6, the portions of land that were to be acquired are erroneously described as paddy lands, where these lots are actually high land. The Petitioner drew the attention of this Court that the land in question has been described as a high land (ග ොඩ ඉඩම) in the Grant in favour of his mother marked as P3 and in the plan attached to the Grant marked as P4.

The Petitioner, at the inquiry regarding the compensation held under Section 9 of the Act on 09.04.2019 (P9), has raised his concerns regarding the erroneous description before the 1^st Respondent, who was the Acquiring Officer. The Petitioner has received a notice under Section 10 of the Act dated 07.08.2019 stating that the 1^st Respondent has decided to pay compensation for Lots 9086, 9087 and 9089 in the plan marked as P6. The Petitioner, agreeing to the findings of the 1^st Respondent at the inquiry by the letter dated 15.08.2019 marked as P11, once again requested the 1^st Respondent to amend the description of the land as “high land”. Then, on 07.07.2020, the 1^st Respondent decided to pay Rs. 701,600/- compensation to the Petitioner under Section 17 of the Act (P12) for the Lots 9086, 9087 and 9089 in the plan marked as P6 and by the letter dated 07.07.2020 marked as P13, an additional sum of Rs. 80,150/- was awarded as compensation to the Petitioner. In response to the Petitioner’s request to amend the description of the land in the P6, the 1^st Respondent by letter dated 28.12.2020 marked as P14 informed the Petitioner that he has requested from the Valuation Department to change the description but, the Valuation Department has informed that the land had been valued as a paddy land in accordance with the Standard report prepared in relation to those land plots and in accordance with the provisions of the Agrarian Services Development Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner, on 31.03.2021, had appealed to the Board of Review (P15) against the award of compensation marked as P12. However, by order dated 03.05.2023 marked as P19, the Board of Review has rejected the Petitioner’s appeal on the basis that the Appeal has not been filed within 21 days as stipulated in Section 23 of the Act. The Petitioner states that the delay