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 Certiorari and Mandamus under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Sirisena Hettiarachchi, Thotupola Road, Pitigala.

PETITIONER C.A. Case No. WRT/0548/25 Vs.

1. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat Office, Niyagama.

2. Director, Department of Agrarian Services, Colombo.

3. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : K.M.G.H. KULATUNGA, J COUNSEL : Mahinda Nanayakkara with Wasantha S. Widanage instructed by Ms. N. Dissanayake, for the Petitioner.

Dilantha Sampath, SC, for the Respondents.

SUPPORTED ON : 24.06.2025 DECIDED ON : 30.06.2025

ORDER

K.M.G.H. KULATUNGA, J

1. The petitioner is seeking to quash the decision/opinion of the 1st respondent dated 21.06.2023, contained in the P-12 Quit Notice, and the application filed in the Magistrate’s Court of Elpitiya for eviction under Land Acquisition Act No. 09 of 1950, and to quash the affidavit filed along with the application made to the Magistrate’s Court and the relevant decision/opinion contained in P-14 and P-14(a).

2. P-12 is a Quit Notice, dated 21.06.2023 issued under Section 07 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 09 of 1950. P-13 is the application preferred to the Magistrate seeking an Order for Eviction. P-14 is the affidavit which was annexed along with the application made to the Magistrate’s Court seeking an Order for Eviction. P-15 contains the journal entries of the said application seeking an Order for Eviction in the Magistrate’s Court of Elpitiya case No. 37506. The Order for Eviction has been pronounced and issued on 24.02.2025.

3. The petitioner has not sought any substantive relief against the said Eviction Order P-22, made and issued on 24.02.2025 but only interim relief as prayed for by prayer (e). By the said Eviction Order P-22, the Learned Magistrate has ordered the eviction of the petitioner from Lot B of the plan marked P-20 (a) and the delivery of possession to the relevant authorized officer.

4. When this application was filed on 21.05.2025 the said Eviction Order P-

22 issued by the learned Magistrate was in existence. The Eviction Order is now issued. By this application, the petitioner is seeking to quash certain steps taken prior to and made in the run up to the said Eviction Order. As such, the relief sought will be superfluous and futile so long as the eviction order remains unchallenged and in force. The petitioner ought to have challenged the Quit Notice before the issue of the Order for Eviction. A Writ of Mandamus will not be issued if it will be futile and be of no purpose.

5. A court exercising discretionary jurisdiction has the discretion to refuse relief where the order sought is likely to be futile. This is so when the order sought is likely to lack practical effect, have no real consequences or cannot be enforced. Courts may refuse to make such orders. The rationale as I see is judicial economy so to say and doing so may have the propensity of undermining the respect for the legal system and the administration of justice. Thus, when a court is called to exercise the discretionary writ jurisdiction it will deny and refuse such an application which evidently has no practical utility and is futile.

6. This principle is settled law and in the case of Samastha Lanka Nidahas Grama Niladhari Sangamaya vs. Dissanayake (2013) BLR 68, it was held that, “It is trite law that no court will issue a mandate in the nature of writ of certiorari or mandamus where to do so would be vexatious or futile.”

Then Marsoof PC., J., in the case of Ratnasiri and others vs. Ellawala (2004) SLR 180, and others held that;

“This court is mindful of the fact that the prerogative remedies it is empowered to grant in these proceedings are not available as of right.

The court has a discretion in regard to the grant of relief in the exercise