IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for mandates in the nature of Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution.

K.V.P. Kamalawathie, Paluwatta, CA Writ Application No. Kohomporuwa, 336/2018 Gangulandeniya.

PETITIONER Vs

1. Land Commissioner General, Land Commissioner General’s Department No. 1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla.

2. The Provincial Land Commissioner, Southern Provincial Land Commissioner’s Office, Galle.

3. District Secretary, District Secretariat Office, Hambantota.

4. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat Office, Katuwana.

5. District Land Commissioner, District Land Commissioner’s Office, Hambantota.

6. V.K.P Piyoris, Udawadiya Kella, Kolonna. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS Before: C.P. Kirtisinghe – J Mayadunne Corea – J Counsel: Shantha Jayawardhena with Chamara Nanayakkarawasam for the Petitioner Rajika Aluwihare for the 1^st-5^th and 7^th Respondents Ashan Fernando with Maheshika Wijethunge for the 6^th Respondent Argued On :13/10/2021 Decided On :08/02/2022 C.P. Kirtisinghe – J The Petitioner is seeking for a mandate in the nature of a writ of Certiorari against the 1^st to 5^th Respondents to cancel the decision contained in the document marked P2(b) and for a writ of mandamus against the 1^st to 5^th Respondents compelling them to enforce the decision contained in the document marked P2(a) and to nominate the Petitioner as the successor in the permit/grant issued to her mother (P1). P2(a) is an entry in the Register of Permits/grants issued under the Land Development Ordinance registering the name of the Petitioner as the nominated successor of the Grant issued to her mother. P2(b) is an entry in the same register cancelling the nomination of the Petitioner and registering the name of her brother the 6^th Respondent as the nominated successor of the permit.

The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. A permit/grant under the provisions of the Land Development Ordinance had been issued to one Asorina the mother of the Petitioner as well as the 6^th Respondent as evidenced by the document marked P1. The Petitioner states that her mother nominated the Petitioner as the successor to the land in suit and thereafter the Petitioner’s name was registered as the nominated successor to the land as evidenced by the extracts marked P2(a). Petitioner states that her brother the 6^th Respondent disputed the said nomination and after holding an inquiry the 4^th Respondent cancelled the nomination of the Petitioner and registered the name of the 6^th Respondent as the nominated successor as per extracts marked P2(b). Thereafter, the Petitioner had made several (requests) appeals to the 1^st to 5^th Respondents as evidenced by documents marked P3, P4, P5, P6 and P7. The 2^nd Respondent Provincial Land Commissioner had sent the letter marked P8 to the 4^th Respondent calling for an observation report after inquiry and the 4^th Respondent had sent the report marked P9 to the 2^nd Respondent that it was decided at a committee meeting that the subsequent nomination is valid.

Thereafter the 2^nd Respondent the Provincial Land Commissioner had sent the letter marked P10 to the 4^th Respondent Divisional Secretary that relevant officers had not taken into consideration the mental condition of the grantee at the time of the nominations and to take steps to record in the register the fact that both nominations had been cancelled. The Petitioner states that the 2^nd Respondent has no right to come to the decision that the Petitioner’s mother (the grantee of the grant) was not mentally fit to nominate the successor without having strict medical proof by qualified medical officers. Therefore, the Petitioner states that the decision of the 2^nd Respondent is not according to law, ultra vires, arbitrary, capricious and against the principles of “audi alteram partem”.

The 6^th Respondent and