Dhammika Ganepola, J.

The Petitioner’s father, Velupillai Ponnuththurai, had entered into possession of the State land called “KARACHCHCHIKADU” situated at Kandawalai in Paranthan upon a permit bearing No. LD/E/157/20 (P1) which was issued under the Land Development Ordinance (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “LDO”) by the Government Agent of Jaffna on 01.04.1959. Upon the death of the said Ponnuththurai in 1978, his wife, Pakkiam Ponnuththurai, had succeeded upon the said Permit in terms of Section 48 of the LDO. Said Pakkiam Ponnuththurai, before her death in 1985, had transferred her rights under the said permit to her daughter, the Petitioner. The above permit holders had continuously used the impugned land for cultivation of paddy and had the possession and the control of the said land until the Petitioner was displaced in 1996, owing to the civil war that prevailed in the area at the time.

In 2002, following the ceasefire, when the Petitioner had visited the said land, she had noticed that the 5^th and the 6^th Respondents, without any rights or interest, had entered the land illegally and were remaining there. The Petitioner had immediately made representations to the 2^nd Respondent, Divisional Secretary, and had requested immediate action and redress. However, the response had been slow, and the outbreak of the next round of war in 2006 had prevented the Petitioner from effectively pursuing the matter.

After the end of the war situation in 2009, the Petitioner had made repeated representations to the 2^nd Respondent seeking an early remedy pertaining to the issue. Thereafter, the Petitioner had received a copy of a letter dated 30.05.2014 (P3) addressed to the 2^nd Respondent by the 1^st Respondent in which it had been mentioned that it was decided that the said land be granted to Mr. V. Ponnuthurai (father of Petitioner) and instructions had been given to two persons who had encroached into the land to quit at the end of the harvest period failing which legal action be taken to oust them. It had been mentioned that the said letter P3 is followed pursuant to an inquiry held in respect of the dispute referred on 06.05.2014. Further, said letter had indicated that action would be taken to provide them with land and with a housing scheme at another place. Thereafter, the Petitioner had received copies of the letters dated 20.06.2014 (P4 and P4a) sent to the 5^th and the 6^th Respondents by the 2^nd Respondent informing them that they should vacate the land in dispute in compliance with the decision arrived at the inquiry held on 06.05.2014, and alternative lands will be provided to them.

Despite the above directions, the 5^th and the 6^th Respondents had remained in the land, and no action had been taken to evict them by the 1^st and the 2^nd Respondents. However, subsequently, the 2^nd Respondent by the letter dated 12.08.2014 (P5) had informed the Petitioner that as per the decision taken on 11.07.2014 at the mobile service, out of the entire land of ½ acre, ¼ acre will be allotted to the Petitioner and the remaining ¼ acre will be allotted to the 5^th and the 6^th Respondents by which each shall be entitled for 20 perches. The Petitioner had rejected and protested the said decision of the 2^nd Respondent to divide the said land in such a manner as such decision is arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires.

Thereafter, in response to the written representations made to the Commissioner General of Lands by the Petitioner, the Petitioner had received a copy of a letter dated 03.09.2014 (P9) addressed to the Provincial Land Commissioner by the 2^nd Respondent, Divisional Secretary, stating that action would be taken to grant the land to the Petitioner after receiving a response from the Commissioner General of Land. The Petitioner states that the stance reflected in the aforesaid letter P9 is untenable and had been issued in bad faith. Subsequently, the Petitioner had received the letter dated 24.12.2014 (P10) signed by the 3^rd and 4^th Respon