Dhammika Ganepola, J.

In the instant application the Petitioners seek inter alia a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision of the 2^nd Respondent dated 21^st of November 2024 reflected in the document marked P10 which directs the Petitioners not to disturb the cultivation rights of the 7^th Respondent and to remove any obstructions to the agricultural road that provide access to the paddy land in subject, a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 1^st to 6^th Respondents from executing the said decision and a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent to hold a fresh inquiry in respect of the subject matter of this application in compliance with the applicable law.

When this matter was taken up for support for notice and grant of interim reliefs on the 15^th February 2025, both parties made oral submissions, and further, the Court permitted both parties to file written submissions.

This order pertains to the issuance of notice and relevant interim relief.

The Petitioners state that the 9^th Respondent held ownership of the land in issue by virtue of Deeds Nos. 5504, 5505, and 5506, dated 1^st February 2017, and the same had been mortgaged to the Hatton National Bank in order to obtain a loan facility. Consequent to the default of the loan, the Hatton National Bank had acquired the land in issue at a public auction. Thereafter, the Petitioners had purchased the land in issue from Hatton National Bank upon a Deed bearing No. 142 dated 10^th July 2024 executed in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners state that after the land in issue was acquired, the Petitioners cultivated the land. However, the 7^th and the 8^th Respondents had attempted to enter the land claiming that they own a particular portion of the land. Thereafter, the 9^th Respondent had made a complaint to the Agrarian Development Officer - Dambulla, stating that the Petitioners obstructed the agricultural roadway which leads to the Mahakapuyaya tank and the said portion of land. Accordingly, the 2^nd Respondent had conducted an inquiry under Section 90 of the Agrarian Development Act (herein after sometimes refers to as “the Act”) and had arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioners have interfered with the cultivation rights of the 9^th Respondent and accordingly had directed the Petitioners to remove the obstructions to the agricultural roadway which gives access to the land that has been identified as a paddy land and to allow the 9^th Respondent to cultivate the land (document marked P10).

It is the main submission of the learned President Counsel of the Petitioners that Section 90 of the Act does not empower the Commissioner General of Agrarian Services to entertain a complaint made by a person who is not an owner, cultivator, or occupier of an agricultural land. It is contended that the evidence adduced at the inquiry failed to prove the fact that the 9^th Respondent is the owner or the occupier of the land. Hence, it is claimed that the decision P10 made by the 2^nd Respondent is prejudicial to the right of the Petitioners who are the present cultivators or occupiers of the land in issue.

It is on the common ground that the 9^th Respondent acquired the ownership of the lands depicted by:

 Lot B in the Plan No.4765 dated 3^rd of November 2009(Y3) and Lot A1 of the Plan No.4764A dated 2^nd of November 2009(Y5) by virtue of Deed No. 5404 dated 23 January 2017;

 Lot B of Plan No.4764 dated 2^nd of November 2009(Y4) by virtue of Deed No. 5505 dated 23^rd January 2017; and  Lot A2 of Plan No. 4764A dated 3^rd of November 2009 by virtue of Deed No. 5506 dated 23^rd of January 2017.

However, the 9^th Respondent had mortgaged only Lot B depicted in Plan No.4765 (Y3) and Lot A1 depicted in Plan No. 4764A (Y4), acquired by virtue of Deed No. 5504. Said property had been purchased by the Petitioners from the Hatton National Bank by virtue of Deed No.142(P4) pursuant to a default of the loan facilities obtained by the 9^th Respondent. However, the land depicted by Lot No. B in Plan No. 4764 (Y4)