Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, CJ.

Three Respondents-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 128(2) of the Constitution. The first of them is the Urban Development Authority (UDA). The second and third are the Chairman and Director General of the 1^st Appellant, respectively. The Appellants impugn the Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 28^th September 2020. Two Petitioners-Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) sought a writ of certiorari to quash a Quit Notice issued by the UDA under State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act No 7 of 1979 as amended. The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal by the impugned Judgment , granted the relief prayed by the Respondents and quashed the aforesaid Quit Notice. The first Petitioner-Respondent is a private limited liability Company (the company) and the second is the Director of the said 1^st Petitioner-Respondent company.

The impugned Quit Notice dated 28^th December 2017, has been issued on the basis that the company is in unlawful possession of the land described in the schedule. The company was asked to hand over possession on 29^th January 2018. The land in question as described in the schedule of the impugned Quit Notice comprises of Lot 1 and Lot 14 depicted in the Preliminary Plan No. 5534 dated 07^th January 1981 (PP.Co.5534), prepared by the Surveyor General. The extent of the relevant land is 0.4435 Hectares.

The Respondents challenged the Quit Notice issued by the Appellant on several grounds, in the Court of Appeal. They contended that there is no material to establish that the said Land in issue is State land, and hence it was claimed that the Appellants could not have formed the opinion that the company is in unlawful possession of a State land. It was further contended that the Respondents and their predecessors in title have been in long, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the said land for their private use and enjoyment for over 25 years. They further submitted that the UDA is not the competent authority for the purpose of the said Quit Notice and that the Notice is totally without jurisdiction, unsupported by evidence and ultra vires the powers of the UDA. It was their contention that the said Quit Notice has been issued for a collateral purpose. They further claimed that their legitimate expectation that they would be able to carry out their commercial activities without any hindrance upon obtaining all approvals was denied.

The Respondents, as the Petitioners in the Court of Appeal, further claimed that the District Court by its Judgment in Case No.32/09/DLA dated 07^th February 2018 decided that the predecessors in title of the Respondents were entitled to receive compensation from the Road Development Authority for the acquisition of the land in question in the said proceedings for road development as opposed to the claim for compensation by the Appellants. The Appellant’s claim for compensation in relation to the said acquisition was rejected by the Court. Respondents contended that the land in question in the aforesaid District Court matter forms a part of the corpus relating to which the impugned Quit Notice is issued and therefore the aforesaid decision of the District Court stands proof of the fact that the UDA has no legal right to issue the impugned Quit Notice.

When granting relief in favour of the Respondents, the Learned Judges of the Court of Appeal held that “……the 2nd Respondent, the Director General of the UDA, abused the provisions of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act in order to eject the 1st Petitioner from the land in suit summarily. He cannot do so. The very fact that the Quit Notice was issued after the inquiry but before the delivery of the Judgment of the District Court amply demonstrates mala fides on the part of the UDA. The summary procedure of ejection laid down in the Act cannot be allowed to be abused to achieve ulterior motives.

That is not