THURAIRAJA, PC, ACTING CJ

1. The Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) made an application to the Provincial High Court holden in Hambantota seeking, inter alia, a writ of certiorari to quash a decision of the 2^nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “2^nd Respondent”). Following a dismissal of the Appellant’s application by the Provincial High Court by order dated 08^th November 2011, the Appellant challenged such dismissal in the Court of Appeal. Following a dismissal of the Appellant’s application by the Court of Appeal by judgment dated 25^th May 2016, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court. On 8^th December 2016, this Court granted leave to appeal on the following questions of law:

“a. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by holding that the Provincial High Court of the Southern Province Holden in Hambantota did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine Petitioner's application?

b. Did The Court of Appeal misinterpret the Article 154P of the Constitution?

c. Did the Court of Appeal fail to properly evaluate the provisions of Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 (as amended)?

d. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. Wijesuriya Vs Nimalawathi Wanigasinghe which has no application to the present matter?”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The Appellant is the owner of the paddy land known as ‘Aluthwewamulana’, one acre and one rood in extent (A1-R1-P0). As proof thereof, the document marked “P1” is tendered, deemed to be the extract from the Agricultural Land Register. The 1^st Respondent-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “1^st Respondent”) had claimed anda rights from the Appellant with respect to the said paddy land.

3. The 1^st Respondent had made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development of Hambantota (bearing No. HA/04/MISSALANIOUS/2008) on 29^th November 2009 that he is the tenant cultivator of the disputed land and to therefore take necessary steps to protect his rights.

4. Subsequently, an inquiry was held, and it was decided, by order marked “P5A”, that the 1^st Respondent is the tenant cultivator of the subject land and that the Appellant should not disturb the rights of the 1^st Respondent. In the said backdrop, the Appellant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court for an issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the said decision of the 2^nd Respondent. It is further the Appellant’s contention that he was not afforded the opportunity to participate in the said inquiry, contrary to and in violation of the rules of natural justice.

5. The 2^nd Respondent, upon filing the statement of objections, raised the preliminary objection that the Provincial High Court holden in Hambantota had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

6. The order of the Provincial High Court held that, in view of the judgment of the Supreme 1 Court in Wijesuriya v. Wanigasinghe and Others, the exercise of island-wide powers by the Commissioner General of Agrarian Development falls within the domain of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, and not the Provincial High Court, and thus, action should have been instituted against the Commissioner in the Court of Appeal.

7. When the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the learned Judges adopted the same view, stating that the Provincial High Court did not have jurisdiction in the present case and is empowered to issue an order in the nature of a writ only on: (a) matters arising within the province, and (b) matters falling within the Provincial Council list contained in the Ninth Schedule to the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution and any authority exercising the powers within the province.

ANALYSIS

8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution came into effect in 1987, and the Provincial Councils Act, No. 42 of 1987 was enacted in order to establish Provincial Councils in the country. The prim