IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under Article 140 of the Constitution for a mandate in the nature of Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition.

Galkadu Gedara Jayathilaka, No. 10, Siri Dharmarathana, Mawatha, Ampara.

PETITIONER Vs.

Court of Appeal Case No:

CA/WRIT/240/2024

1. U.P.I. Anurudhda Piyadasa, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Ampara.

2. Balapitiya Liynage Prasanna Udayanga Silva, Senior Superintendant of Surveys, District Survey Office, Ampara.

3. A.L.I. Bhanu, Land Commissioner (Inter Provincial) Office, Ampara.

4. S.A. Nishantha Priyadarshana, The Registrar, District/Magistrate Court, Ampara.

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

RESPONDENTS Before: Mayadunne Corea, J Mahen Gopallawa, J Counsel: Rushdhie Habeeb with Supun Dissanayake for the Petitioner.

Ranga Dayananda for the 2^nd Respondent.

M . Amarasinghe SSC for the State. Supported on: 03.07.2025 Decided on: 01.08.2025 Mayadunne Corea J The Petitioner is seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:

“(d) Grant and issue an order in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st, 2^nd and/or any other Respondents to grant the long-term lease license and/or permit as stipulated in P10 (e) Grant and issue an order in the nature of a Writ of Prohibition directing the 1^st, 2^nd and/or any other Respondents to preventing grant the land in question to 2^nd Respondent and/or any other person (f) Grant and issue an order in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Land Commissioner General as stipulated in his letter no. 4/10/63695 and dated 17.02.2022 which is hereto marked as P13”

The facts of the case briefly are as follows. The Petitioner alleges that he is in possession of the land in question in the extent of 10.3 perches. The said land consists of three lots. There has been a dispute between the 2^nd Respondent and the Petitioner who both claim part of the land. It is further alleged by the Petitioner that he nor the 2^nd Respondent possesses any valid permit for the said land. It is also submitted that the 1^st Respondent was going to give a lease to the extent of 7 perches to the Petitioner from the said land with the balance to the 2^nd Respondent. The Petitioner claims the said decision to be ultra vires. He further submits that the 1^st Respondent had filed a case against the Petitioner for ejectment under State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act. The Petitioner alleges that this action is in violation of the legitimate expectations of the Petitioner and hence, this Writ Application.

It is common ground that the three lots of land namely, lots 82, 83 and 84 morefully described later in this elsewhere are State land. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land and an application under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act had been filed against the Petitioner for the unauthorized occupation of lot 82 and the learned Magistrate had issued an Order of eviction against which the Petitioner had filed revision papers at the High Court but later had withdrawn.

The Petitioner’s contention The Petitioner contends that being in occupation from 1996 he applied to regularize his illegal occupation and the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th Respondents had been positive of the said application. Thus, creating a legitimate expectation in the Petitioner to obtain a permit.

Objections of the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Respondents The Respondents raised several objections to this Application, among other objections stating, • The Petitioner’s representation itself does not validly create a legitimate expectation.

• The Petitioner is estopped from claiming all the lots of land he claims.

• Misrepresentation of facts.

Objections of the 2^nd Respondent • While associating with the learned Senior State Counsel’s submission, the Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent took objections on misrepresentation of facts.

• The disputed lot 82 had been ori