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 Writ of Certiorari, Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

A. Aravindh Kumar, Henfold Estate, Lindula.

Petitioner Application No: Vs.

CA/ WRIT/390/2018

1. J.M.C. Priyadharshini, Competent Authority, Plantation Management Monitoring Division, Ministry of Plantation Industry, 11th floor, Sethsiripaya 2nd Block, Battaramulla.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Watawala Plantation Company, No. 60, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 03.

3. The Superintendent, Henfold Estate, Lindula.

Respondents CA-WRT-390-2018 BEFORE : D. N. Samarakoon J Neil Iddawala J COUNSEL : V. Puvitharan PC with A. Rajasekaran and G. Arunraj for the Petitioner K.V. S Ganesharajan with M.Mangaleswaraj Shanker, S. Ganesan and Tharindi Sankalpana for the Respondents Argued on : 12.07.2023 Written Submission : 0 2 . 0 8 .2 023 Decided on : 27.09.2023 Iddawala – J The petitioner through this application seeks relief by way of Writ of Certiorari to quash the Quit Notice issued by the 1st respondent, Writ of Prohibition against the 1st respondent from proceeding in terms of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979 from taking actions to eject the petitioner from the land and Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to interfere with the lawful possession of the petitioner.

The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner has been in possession of the land since 10.05.1985, which is certified by the Grama Niladari of 476/N/Henfold, Lindula (P1). The petitioner stated he has been paying taxes for the land since 1989 (P2). The 1st respondent in accordance with the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act issued a Quit Notice (P3) dated 31.10.2018 demanding the petitioner to handover the possession of the land to the superintendent/agents of Henfold Estate on or before 20.12.2018.

CA-WRT-390-2018 The petitioner further claims that the said land does not belong to Henfold Estate which is certified by the 3rd respondent who is the superintendent of Henfold Estate through his letter dated 10.01.1988 (P4). Thereby the petitioner stated the said land is vested/owned by the Land Reform Commission (LRC) and the Director of District Land Reform Commission has issued a letter dated 26.03.2014 (P5) stating that upon the payment of Rs. 33,898.50/- for the possession of the abovementioned land from 1987 to 2013, the Deed will be issued. Thereby on 08.04.2014 the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 33,900/- to obtain the Deed (P6).

The petitioner states that Land Reform Commission has requested the Nuwara Eliya Election Commissioner and the Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat through letters dated 26.11.2018 (P7 & P8) to verify the eligibility of the petitioner in order to grant a long-term lease to the land occupied by the petitioner.

Petitioner states that he replies to a letter dated 17.08.2017 (P9) informing the 1st respondent by his letter dated 01.09.2017 (P10) that the land in dispute does not belong to Henfold Estate and thus the 1st respondent is not entitled to take any actions in terms of the circular/letter (P11) dated 10.12.2003 signed by the Competent Authority, Plantation Management Monitoring Division, Ministry of Plantation Industry.

The petitioner claims that despite the land in question belonging to the Land Reform Commission and the said directives (P11) by the Hon. Minister of Plantations Industry, the 1st respondent sent Quit Notice to the petitioner. The petitioner further states that since the land belongs to Land Reform Commission, the Ministry of Plantation Industry has no authority to evict the petitioner and/or take any action under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act. Thereby, the petitioner claims that the Quit Notice issued by the 1st respondent is ultra vires and violated the principles of Natural Justice. The pe