IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for mandates in the nature of Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal Case No.

Asuramuni Niluka Dilhani Silva CA/WRT/0131/2021 No. 1/11, Galle Road, Pinwatta Panadura. Petitioner Vs

1. Weliwita Kankanamge Janaka No. 09, Galle Road, Pinwatta, Panadura.

2. Panadura Pradeshiya Sabha Wadduwa Sub Office, Wadduwa.

3. Urban Development Authority, 6^th & 7^th Floors, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla.

4. Road Development Authority, Maganeguma Mahamedura, No: 216, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Koswatta, Battaramulla. Respondents

1. L. H. Nuwan Sanjaya Fernando, Secretary, Pradeshiya Sabha, Panadura Pradeshiya Sabha, Wadduwa Sub Office, Wadduwa.

2. Special Commissioner, Panadura Pradeshiya Sabha, Wadduwa Sub Office, Wadduwa.

Added Respondents Before: M. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J.

Counsel: Varuna De Saram instructed by Manjula Balasooriya for the Petitioner.

Hurshid Maharoof with Ijaz Azmy instructed by Ms. Nadeeka Senanayake for the 2^nd Respondents.

1st Respondent is absent and unrepresented.

Supported on: 23.01.2024 Decided on: 28.03.2024 MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J.

I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of this Application. I heard the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Panadura Pradeshiya Sabha as well.

The Petitioner, in the amended Petition dated 01-11-2022, asserts that he is the owner of the premises more fully described in the first schedule to the deed of gift-bearing No. 4262 dated 28-07-1999 attested by Ranjith Rodrigo, Notary Public marked P1. The 1st Respondent is the owner of the property adjoining the premises of the Petitioner. By letter dated 28-05-2015 (P5), the Petitioner informed the 2nd Respondent that the 1st Respondent is attempting to obtain a building permit to construct a commercial building that contravenes various regulations. When the Petitioner became aware that the 2nd Respondent had approved the said commercial building, by letter dated 25-08-2017 (P8), the Petitioner requested the 2nd Respondent to cancel the same. In response to P8, the 2nd Respondent by letter dated 11-09-2017 (P9), informed the Petitioner that the said approval had been granted under reference No. BA/224/2016 subject to the conditions therein. The Petitioner further asserts that on 26-10-2018 the 1st Respondent had commenced construction of the said commercial building obstructing the servient right of the Petitioner. By letter dated 06-02-2019, the Petitioner requested the 2nd Respondent not to extend the approval granted to the 1st Respondent as there was a case pending in the District Court in this regard. Since the 2nd Respondent failed to comply with the request made by the Petitioner, the Petitioner instituted an action in the District Court of Panadura in the case bearing No. 3492/SPL against the 1st and 2nd Respondents praying, inter-alia ;

1. For an Order that the said construction is illegal.

2. For an interim injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from carrying on the said construction until the final determination of the case.

3. For a permanent injunction preventing the 1st Respondent from carrying on the construction in dispute.

The learned District Judge refused to issue the said interim injunction and the said case is pending in the District Court of Panadura in respect of the remaining reliefs prayed for.

The Petitioner states that the building permit and the site plan, marked as P49 and P50 respectively, are contrary to the regulations and provisions of the law as described in paragraphs 64 and 65 of the amended Petition.

In those circumstances, in the instant Application, the Petitioner is seeking, inter-alia, the following relief.

1. A Writ of Certiorari quashing the approval given by the 2nd Respondent dated 30-12-2016.

2. A Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to not issue approvals required to carry out the