Adithya Patabendige, J.

The Petitioners have filed the instant application against the 1^st to 3^rd Respondents seeking a mandate in the nature of writ of mandamus compelling the 1^st Respondent to divest the land described in the schedule to this application (hereinafter referred to as “the land”), in terms of Section 39 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The said land, known as, “Godapragahawatte” was previously owned by the Petitioners.

The Respondents, having tendered their statements of objections, objected to the said application, and sought its dismissal. During the pendency of proceedings, the 4^th Respondent, Bandargama Pradeshiya Sabha, moved to intervene. This Court initially refused the said application for intervention. Being aggrieved by that order, the 4^th Respondent preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court, which thereafter directed this Court to allow the intervention.

When this case was taken up for arguments, submissions were made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and the 4^th Respondent. Learned State Counsel, who appeared for the 1^st to 3^rd Respondents, informed that he relied on the submissions made on behalf of the 4^th Respondent. Subsequently, written submissions were tendered by the Petitioner and the 4^th Respondent.

During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioners informed Court that the Petitioners were willing to accept the current market value of the land as compensation in lieu of the divestiture of the land in question.

The facts giving rise to this application can be narrated as follows.

By order dated 15/04/1976, the 1^st Respondent, acting under Section 38(A) of the Act, directed the 2^nd Respondent to take immediate possession of the land for the purpose of establishing a bus stand. The said order was duly published in the Government Gazette dated 15/04/1976 marked “P4”.

Pursuant to the said order, possession of the land was taken by the Assistant Government Agent on 27/07/1976, as evidenced by the document marked, “4R5”. Thereafter, a notice under Section 7 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 15/07/1978, marked “P5” along with the petition.

While the acquisition proceedings were pending, a Partition Action bearing No.01/P was in progress before the District Court of Horana, and the interlocutory decree was entered allotting 4020/4400 shares of the land to the Petitioners. Consequent to the said interlocutory decree, the Petitioners made a written request to the 2^nd Respondent to expedite the payment of compensation in respect of the said acquisition of the land by letter dated 22/04/1994 marked “P6”.

The Acquiring Officer thereafter made an award under Section 17 (1) of the Act marked “P12” by the Petitioner and “4R8 (a) and (b)” by the 4^th Respondent. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the Petitioners appealed to the Land Acquisition Board of Review, which awarded a sum of Rs. 184,000 to the 1^st Petitioner and a sum of Rs. 30,600 to the 2^nd Petitioner.

According to the document marked “4R9”, it appears that the 2^nd Petitioner had accepted the quantum of compensation awarded in Case No. KT. 438 on 08/02/2002. However, the particulars of the said case have not been furnished by any of the parties to this Court.

It is apparent from documents marked P14, P16, P17, P18, P20, P21, P25, P26, P28, P32, and P32(A) that the Petitioners repeatedly made representations to the relevant authorities, requesting either the payment of compensation or the divestiture of the unutilized portion of the acquired land.

It further appears that, in response to the aforesaid letters, the divestiture of the unutilized portion of the land had been recommended by several public authorities. The letters marked P10, P11, P15, P19, P21, and P22, clearly demonstrate that the matter had been under administrative consideration for a considerable period of time.

Pursuant to a request made by the Ministry of Agricultural Development, Mr. Prasank