Dr. D. F. H. Gunawardhana, J.

Order

Introduction

According to the Petition, the Petitioner’s grandfather, Mr. Daniel Appuhamy, had been the original owner of the land known as ‘Dambugahawatta’, which is an extent of one acre, three roots, and fifteen perches. The said Mr. Daniel Appuhamy had donated a certain portion of the land known as ‘Dambugahawatta’ to the Daranagama Primary School; and thereafter, the Petitioner’s grandfather donated the remaining One Acre of land to his daughter (Padmaseeli), and the remaining 3 roots and 15 perches to his son (Wijayasiri), who is the father of the Petitioner.

However, later, Padmaseeli and the Petitioner’s father (Wijayasiri) amicably partitioned the entire land and executed cross-conveyances. Since the Petitioner’s father (Wijayasiri) subsequently continued to possess Padmaseeli’s portion of the land, the Petitioner asserts that his father acquired prescriptive title to that portion as well. Thereafter, the entirety of the land was gifted to the Petitioner, and thereby the Petitioner became the owner of the land. Accordingly, the Petitioner claims the entirety of the land in question.

The Petitioner has further stated that when his father was one of the co-owners, after partitioning the land with his sister, a part of the Petitioner’s father’s land was acquired by the Government on payment of compensation.

The 6^th Respondent, who is the Divisional Secretary of the area within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, has issued a notice under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 09 of 1950 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Acquisition Act”), to acquire one acre out of the land in question. It is alleged that, thereafter, in terms of Section 38A of the Land Acquisition Act, the 10^th Respondent took immediate possession of the land for the public purpose for which it was proposed to be acquired.

Subsequently, the Petitioner alleges that notices under Sections 4, 5, and 7 of the Land Acquistion Act were issued, and the Petitioner claimed compensation from the acquiring officer, the 6^th Respondent.

In the meantime, the Petitioner had already made an application to this Court bearing number CA (Writ) 713/2024, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order by which the 6^th Respondent sought to acquire a portion of the land, as well as the decision of the 10^th Respondent to take immediate possession thereof.

However, since the Respondents gave an undertaking that they would not take immediate possession, the said application in toto which challenged even the notice issued under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, was withdrawn by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner has now instituted this application, alleging that immediate possession of the land has been virtually taken by the 6^th Respondent, as depicted in the photographs annexed to the Petition, since the 7^th Respondent had initiated certain programs with the participation of members of the public.

Therefore, the Petitioner seeks to reurge similar grounds in order to obtain the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue notice on the Respondents;

(b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Gazette Notification bearing No. 242/24 dated 18^th February 2025, published under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, which purports to declare the State’s intention to acquire a portion of the Petitioner’s land, as morefully described in the document marked ‘P31’;

(c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Land Application, as morefully described in the said document marked ‘P8’;

(d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents and/or relevant authorities to forthwith abandon the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the Petitioner’s land, under and in terms of section 50(1) of the Land Acquisition act and/or Rule 268 of the Land Manual;

(e) Issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents, or any other persons acting under their authority or direction, from taking any further steps whatsoever towards, or in