Dhammika Ganepola, J.

The 1^st Petitioner has filed this application through his Power of Attorney holder, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 2^nd Respondent as reflected in the letter dated 4^th August 2020, marked as P14 to the effect that the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation in respect of acquisition of the land in issue as the said land had been a State land at the time of the acquisition and a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent to award appropriate compensation to the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the land in question.

The Petitioner was once the owner of an undivided 1/18 share of a 400 acres land plot called Laggala, also referred to as Welivita, located in Laggala. In proof of his ownership of the land, the Petitioner submits the Deed of Gift bearing No. 384 dated 18.01.1970 (P1), which provides that the Petitioner holds title to the land together with three other co-owners. After the enactment of the Land Reform Law No. 1 of 1972, the other three co-owners had made statutory declarations regarding their shares of the land. However, the Petitioner had not submitted such a declaration as his share, amounting to 22.22 acres, had been below the ceiling imposed by the Land Reform Law.

Later, the Petitioner had come to know that the impugned land had been vested with the 3^rd Respondent, and the aforesaid co-owners had claimed title to the entire land of 400 acres. Accordingly, the Petitioner, by his letter dated 16.03.1976 (P2), had requested the 3^rd Respondent to hand over the share of the land owned by the Petitioner back to him and the 3^rd Respondent had failed to respond to the said request. While the matters remained as such, the 3^rd Respondent had caused to make a publication under Section 29 of the Land Reform Law calling for written claims for compensation for the above land.

In spite of such circumstances, the Petitioner, by his letter dated 21^st August 1978(P3), objected to the payment of compensation to the aforesaid three co-owners and requested 3^rd Respondent to restore the Petitioner in possession of his share of the land. Accordingly, an inquiry had been held by the 3^rd Respondent, and the aforesaid co-owners had agreed to settle the said dispute on the premise that the Petitioner is entitled to an allotment of land in extent 22 acres adjacent to the land claimed by the said co-owners instead of the undivided share owned by the Petitioner. The 3^rd Respondent, by his letter dated 07^th April 1979(P5), had confirmed the entitlement of the Petitioner to the aforesaid 22 acres of the land and had required the Petitioner to have a private survey conducted. Thereafter, a survey had been conducted and A. Doloswela, Licensed Surveyor, had prepared the Plan No. 2837 dated 30^th April 1979 (P6) which depicts the aforesaid 22 acres of the land as claimed by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the said portion of land had been handed over to the Petitioner, and the 3^rd Respondent had conveyed the said land to the Petitioner by Deed bearing No. 780 dated 6^th of September 1979(P8). Accordingly, the Petitioner had been vested with the absolute title and the ownership of the aforesaid land depicted in Plan P6.

The Petitioner states that his land was subsequently acquired by the Government for the Moragahakanda and Kalugaga Development Project. The Petitioner had claimed compensation for the said acquisition and had made representations to the relevant authorities. Accordingly, the Petitioner had been asked to be present for an inquiry on 14^th December 2017(P12) by the Divisional Secretary of Laggala -Pallegama. Thereafter, the Petitioner had been informed by the 2^nd Respondent by his letter dated 04^th August 2020(P14) that, in response to an advice sought from the Attorney General with regard to the procedure to be adopted in deciding the ownership of land, the 2^nd Respondent had been advised that no necessity arise for any payment of compensation as t