A revision application for eviction must establish a legal basis for possession and jurisdiction of the authority, which was unproven.

Introduction

1) The Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) had made this revision application against the Plaintiff- Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) to seek the reliefs prayed for in the petition dated 4th October 2019.

2) The said reliefs sought in the Petitioner’s petition are reproduced as follows;

a) Set aside the Order of the Learned High Court Judge of the Central Province Holden in Kandy in Revision Application No. 99/2019 dated 26th September 2019,

b) To set aside the Order of the Learned Magistrate Court Judge of Teldeniya dated 06.09.2019 in case No. 49487,

c) To dismiss and or/ reject the said Action No. 49486 in the District Court of Teldeniya,

d) To grant costs, and

e) Such other and further reliefs.

Facts of this case

3) The Petitioner had sought in the prayer of the petition to set aside the Learned Magistrate’s Order dated 6^th September 2019 and to set aside the Learned High Court Judge’s Order dated 26^th September 2019.

4) This action pertains to the recovery of possession of state land, filed by the Competent Authority in the Magistrate’s Court of Teldeniya.

5) The Magistrate had reviewed the facts, documents and granted the Respondent-Competent Authority permission to evict the Petitioner, her occupants and dependents who were in possession of the state land referred to in the notice to quit filed by the Respondent.

6) Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the Petitioner had filed a revision application in the Provincial High Court of Kandy. The Learned High Court Judge, having considered the relevant facts, had dismissed the Petitioner’s revision application without issuing notice and had affirmed the Order of the Learned Magistrate.

7) Aggrieved by the aforementioned High Court Order, the Petitioner had filed this revision application to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court, on the grounds that the Respondent was not the Competent Authority and the Learned High Court Judge had not considered whether the Respondent had any right to initiate proceedings at the Magistrate’s Court.

8) As per the Petitioner, the Learned Magistrate as well as the Learned High Court Judge had failed to consider that there was no proper and valid affidavit filed by the Respondent before the Magistrate’s Court.

9) Further, the Learned High Court Judge had failed to consider that there was proper proof that the land claimed by the state is a part of the state land.

10) In light of this, the Petitioner had sought the reliefs prayed for in the petition and to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction to grant the Petitioner’s reliefs.

Disputed facts

11) When this matter was taken up for argument on the 3^rd of September 2024, both parties agreed to conclude the matter by way of filing written submissions.

12) Considering the facts pertinent to this case, the written submissions and in considering the documents, I am of the view that the following disputed points should be examined to determine whether the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked;

I. Had the Learned Magistrate's Order considered the facts pertinent to the dispute related to the instant application?

II. Has the Learned High Court Judge correctly evaluated the Learned Magistrate’s Order considering the facts and documents put forward by both parties?

III. If so, can the application filed by the Petitioner to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction be sustained?

I. Had the Learned Magistrate's Order considered the facts pertinent to the dispute related to the instant application?

13) On perusal of the Learned Magistrate’s Order dated 6th September 2019, it wa