IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 127(2) and 128(2) with 132 (3) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka against the judgment dated 04.10.2017 made by the Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

J. M. Chandrika Priyadharshani, The Competent Authority, Plantation Management Monitoring Division, S.C. Appeal No. 62/2018 Ministry of Plantation Industries, S.C. (S.P.L.) L.A. Application No. 256/2017 No. 55/75, Vauxhall Street, C.A. Appeal No. CA/PHC/31/2014 Colombo 02.

H.C. Case No. HC/NE/

Applicant – Competent Authority M.C. Hatton Case No. 68115/13 Vs.

Ammasi Krishna, Kotiyagala Estate Lower Division, No. 09, Housing Scheme, Plot No. 26, Kotiyagala Estate, Bogawanthalawa.

Respondent AND BETWEEN Ammasi Krishna, Kotiyagala Estate Lower Division, No. 09, Housing Scheme, Plot No. 26, Kotiyagala Estate, Bogawanthalawa.

Respondent – Petitioner Vs.

J. M. Chandrika Priyadharshani, The Competent Authority, Plantation Management Monitoring Division, Ministry of Plantation Industries, No. 55/75, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02.

Applicant – Competent Authority –

Respondent AND THEN BETWEEN Ammasi Krishna, Kotiyagala Estate Lower Division, No. 09, Housing Scheme, Plot No. 26, Kotiyagala Estate, Bogawanthalawa.

Respondent – Petitioner – Appellant J. M. Chandrika Priyadharshani, The Competent Authority, Plantation Management Monitoring Division, Ministry of Plantation Industries, No. 55/75, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02.

Applicant – Competent Authority –

Respondent – Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN J. M. Chandrika Priyadharshani, The Competent Authority, Plantation Management Monitoring Division, Ministry of Plantation Industries, No. 55/75, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02.

Applicant – Competent Authority –

Respondent – Respondent – Appellant Vs.

Ammasi Krishna, Kotiyagala Estate Lower Division, No. 09, Housing Scheme, Plot No. 26, Kotiyagala Estate, Bogawanthalawa.

Respondent – Petitioner – Appellant –

Respondent Before: Hon. Murdu N. B. Fernando, P.C., CJ.

Hon. S. Thurairaja, P.C., J.

Hon. E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J. Hon. A. L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.

Hon. Janak De Silva, J.

Counsels: K. V. S. Ganesharajan with R. C. Karunakaran and S. Sothilingam for the Applicant – Competent Authority – Respondent – Respondent – Petitioner Niranjan de Silva with Shane Foster, Shynika Perera, S. R. Thambiah and Jothini Weerawansa for the Respondent – Petitioner – Appellant –

Respondent Vikum de Abrew, PC, ASG with S. Wimalasena, DSG as amicus on behalf of the Hon Attorney General.

Written Submissions: 02.05.2023 by the Hon. Attorney General

23.08.2018 by the Applicant – Competent Authority –

Respondent – Respondent – Appellant

08.11.2018 and 28.03.2023 by the Respondent – Petitioner –

Appellant – Respondent Argued On: 19.01.2023 Decided On: 24.03.2025 Janak De Silva, J.

The Applicant-Competent Authority-Respondent-Respondent-Appellant (Appellant) served a quit notice under Section 3 of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 07 of 1979 as amended (Act) on the Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent (Respondent) directing him to hand over possession of the land more fully described in the schedule to the quit notice.

As the Respondent failed to do so, the Appellant made an application for ejectment to the Magistrate’s Court of Hatton. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties made an order for ejectment of the Respondent from the corpus.

The Respondent moved by way of revision to the High Court of the Central Province. The learned High Court Judge held that the High Court of the Central Province does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application and dismissed it. He did so based on the decision in The Superintendent, Stafford Estate and Two Others v. Solaimuthu Rasu [(2013) 1 Sri.L.R. 25]

Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of the Central Province, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which held that the