IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Orders in the nature of Writs of Mandamus and in the nature of Writs of Certiorari in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

1. G. A. Dayapala, Mihintalawa road, Kurulugasweva, Galkulama, Anuradhapura. PETITIONER CA No. CA/Writ/0314/2019 v.

1. M. S. Sajeeda Banu, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Thirappane.

2. Mr. Gayantha Karunathilleke The Minister, Ministry of Land and Parliament Reform, “Mihikathamedura”

Land Secretariat, No: 1200/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla.

3. Mr. W. H. Karunarathne The Secretary, Ministry of Land and Parliament Reform, “Mihikathamedura”

Land Secretariat, No: 1200/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla.

4. Mrs. R.M.C.M. Herath Commissioner General of Land, Land Commissioner General ‘s Department, “Mihikathamadura”, No: 1200/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla.

5. Mrs. K. P. S. Premadasa Assistant Commissioner of Land for Anuradhapura District, Land Commissioner General’s Department, “Mihikathamadura”, No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla.

6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulfstdorp, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. &

Wickum A. Kaluarachchi J.

COUNSEL : Lakshan Dias for the Petitioner.

S. Wimalasena, DSG for 1^st – 6^th Respondents.

ARGUED ON : 20.02.2023 DECIDED ON : 20.03.2023 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

Introduction The instant application emanates from the cancellation of permit bearing No. 279/31 (P 2) issued by the 1^st Respondent under the Land Development Ordinance, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the ‘L.D.O.’).

The Petitioner inter-alia sought a writ of certiorari against the 1^st Respondent quashing the decision to terminate the grant (sic) bearing No. 279/31 of the Petitioner as per ‘P 13’ and a writ of Mandamus against the 1^st to 2^nd Respondents to conduct a fair investigation and reissue the grant (sic) No.

279/31 to the Petitioner.

Factual matrix According to the Petitioner, on or around 2005, the Petitioner succeeded to the land of his father. The Petitioner stated that on or about 28^th December 2019 he became aware that his grant (sic) had been cancelled on or about 21^st March 2018 on the ground of wrongful utilization of the land. The Petitioner stated that he had not received any notice of the cancellation until he requested the information pursuant to the Right to Information Act.

Subsequently, the Petitioner requested the Divisional Secretary to conduct an inquiry into the matter., [‘P15’.] The Petitioner alleged that although he is entitled to a notice under Chapter VII (sic) of the L.D.O., he was not served notice pursuant to Section 90 read along with Section 88 (sic) of the L.D.O. The Petitioner stated that he paid acreage tax for the year 2019 without being aware of the cancellation and the government had accepted the tax.2 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the aforementioned circumstances the 1^st to 4^th Respondents breached the procedure set out in the L.D.O. and the 1^st Respondent acted arbitrarily violating the principles of

2 ‘P14’.

natural justice by terminating the grant (sic) No. 279/31 issued in favour of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted that the above decision is ultra vires.

Matters to be determined The fundamental issues before the Court are whether there is an impropriety of procedure in cancellation of the permit issued to the Petitioner and whether the above decision of the 1^st Respondent is ultra vires.

As it was correctly submitted by the 1^st to 6^th Respondents, ‘P 2’ is not a grant but a permit issued under the L.D.O. The Respondent stated that permit ‘P 2’ was given to one Podi Appuhamilage Dayapala whereas the Petitioner named in the caption and the person who has sworn the affidavit in support of the Petition is one G. A. Dayapala and therefore, the application is misconceived in law. In response, the