IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal under Articles 127 and 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provision) Act No 54 of 2006

1. Aquamarine International (Pvt) Ltd.

No. 60/1, Sri Gnanendra Road, Ratmalana.

2. Nihal Ananda Malavi Pathirana, The Chairman, Aquamarine International (Pvt) Ltd.

No. 60/1, Sri Gnanendra Road, Ratmalana.

SC Appeal 13/2014 Plaintiffs SC/HC/CALA 353/2012 Vs.

SP/HCCA/RAT/304/2007 DC Embilipitiya 5874/Compensation The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

Defendant AND BETWEEN The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

Defendant-Appellant Vs

1. Aquamarine International (Pvt) Ltd.

No. 60/1, Sri Gnanendra Road, Ratmalana.

2. Nihal Ananda Malavi Pathirana, The Chairman, Aquamarines International (Pvt) Ltd.

No. 60/1, Sri Gnanendra Road, Ratmalana.

Plaintiff-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN

1. Aquamarine International (Pvt) Ltd.

No. 60/1, Sri Gnanendra Road, Ratmalana.

2. Nihal Ananda Malavi Pathirana, The Chairman, Aquamarine International (Pvt) Ltd.

No. 60/1, Sri Gnanendra Road, Ratmalana.

Plaintiff-Respondent- Petitioner/Appellants Vs.

The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

Defendant-Appellant-

Respondent Before: Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J., and A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.

Counsel: Nigel Hatch, PC with S. Galappatti and Ms. S. Illangage for the Plaintiff-

Respondent-Appellants Rajitha Perera, DSG for the Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Argued on: 09-03-2022 and 20-05-2022 Decided on: 08-10-2024 Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J., The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants, Aquamarine International (Pvt) Limited and its Chairman (“the Plaintiff/Appellant”) sued the Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, the Hon. Attorney General (“the Defendant/Respondent”), for compensation pertaining to the matter discussed below. The District Court of Embilipitiya entered judgement in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant went up in appeal to the Civil Appellate High Court of Ratnapura (“the High Court”). By the judgment dated 17^th July, 2012 the appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Nevertheless, the High Court varied the quantum of damages awarded by the District Court. The Plaintiff is now before this Court being aggrieved by the said judgement.

The Plaintiff’s Case

01.The Plaintiff submitted a project proposal to the Greater Colombo Economic Commission (now known as the Board of Investment- “BOI”) to establish and operate an export oriented ornamental fish breeding facility at the Udawalawa Fisheries Station. This facility setup on State land was managed by the National Aquatic Resources Agency (NARA).

02.The BOI approved the project subject to conditions. By letter dated 21-02-1994, NARA granted permission for the Plaintiff to commence ‘preliminary work’ at the Udawalawa Fisheries Station, pending approval of the Cabinet of Ministers. The Udawalawa Fisheries Station, a land in extent 76 acres, was a research station established by NARA under an ADB project for fish breeding. It had 46 ponds and buildings attached to the station and was lying abandoned at the said time.

03.The Cabinet of Ministers approved the grant of land to the Plaintiff for the said project on a 30 year lease, subject to entering into a lease agreement with the State and payment of lease rental and furnishing of security. The Secretary, to the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources conveyed the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers to the Plaintiff by letter dated 03-08-1994.

04.However, prior to the execution of the lease agreement and consideration been paid by the Plaintiff, the Secretary to the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources by a letter dated 27-09-1994 informed the Plaintiff to vacate the Udawalawa Fisheries Station on the ground that the Plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation.

05.The Plaintiff did not vacate the land and th