JUDGEMENT

K.M.G.H. KULATUNGA, J.

1. The petitioner filed this application seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the 1st respondent, Divisional Secretary’s decision and/or letter marked as X-7 to evict the petitioner; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold an inquiry regarding the title of the petitioner; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the action bearing No. MISC/34726/2019; a writ of prohibition preventing the respondents from evicting the petitioner; and a declaration that the petitioner and her predecessors in title have been in occupation of the subject matter.

2. The 1^st respondent Divisional Secretary instituted proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court of Valachchanai under the provisions of Section 5 of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 09 of 1979 to evict the petitioner from the land Lot 1 as described and depicted in plan No. PP/මඩ/2788. The petitioner claims that her father was a holder of a valid permit. However, the petitioner has failed to produce the same and her position is that during the civil war they were displaced and lost all their belongings including the permit. The relevant Divisional Secretariat was also destroyed by fire. As such, the petitioner is unable to tender a copy of said permit but states that the permit number is 5503. In support of which, plan No. PP/මඩ/09 is tendered (X-1), in which there is a reference to an LDO permit No. 5503, that of Vellayar Mustapha. The petitioner claims to be a daughter of the said Mustapha.

3. According to the learned State Counsel, the land referred to in plan X- 1 by the petitioner is not the land described in the schedule to the quit notice marked X-7. The said land so referred to is depicted as Lot No. 01 of the Surveyor General’s plan No. PP/මඩ/2788 dated 19.10.2015.

4. The petitioner in this application raises two grounds in challenging the impugned quit notice: (1) that the 1^st respondent does not have jurisdiction, as the land is situated within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent; and (2) that the petitioner is the successor of a former permit holder to the said land. I will consider both these issues together, as they are interconnected. According to the petitioner, she claims that her father, Vellayar Mustapha, was the LDO permit holder of permit No. 5503. The petitioner seeks to support this position by plan X-1, according to which a lot depicted as “D” is said to have been cultivated by the said Mustapha under an LDO permit No. 5503. The said plan bears No. PP/මඩ/09 and was prepared on 09.05.1965 by the Surveyor General (X-1). It is depicted therein that the said land is in Miravodai (Muslim) village, Koralaipattu, Batticaloa District, Eastern Province. However, the quit notice X-7 is in respect of a land in Miravodai (Tamil) village of the Grama Sevaka Division No. 202, as depicted in plan No. PP/මඩ/2788 prepared by the Surveyor General, dated 19.10.2015 (R-1). Thus, according to the Surveyor General’s plan prepared in 2015, the said land referred to in the quit notice is within the Miravodai (Tamil) village, in Koralaipattu. In the objections, the respondent has tendered document R-3, which had clarified the issue of the relevant Divisional Secretary under whom this land now is. According to R-3(a), the District Secretary of Batticaloa has confirmed that all matters pertaining to the land depicted as lot 01 and the subject matter of the eviction order have been administered by the Divisional Secretary of Koralaipattu, Valachchanai (1st respondent). Accordingly, the position taken up by the petitioner that the 1st respondent is not the relevant authority is untenable and misconceived.

5. It is apparent that as at 2015 and there onwards, the land in issue referred to in the quit notice is under the purview of the 1^st respondent. Now I will consider if the land referred to in X-1 claimed to have been cultivated by Mustapha on the LDO permit No. 5503 is the same as that referred to in the quit notice and p