The court upheld that discretionary revision requires more than alleged illegality; it must shock the court's conscience.

Introduction

1) The Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) had made this revision application against the Complainant- Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) to seek the reliefs prayed for in the petition dated 22^nd April 2024.

2) The said reliefs sought in the Petitioner’s petition are reproduced as follows;

a) Accept and maintain this application exonerating the Petitioner from the delay in filing this application,

b) Issue notice on the Respondent,

c) Stay the further proceeding in the case No 1722 (නෙරපීම) before the Honourable Magistrate Court until judgment or Order delivered in the appeal case No CA (PHC)46/2002 and the case is terminated,

d) The appeal case No CA (PHC) 46/2022 and this revision application to be taken together,

e) Set aside the Order dated 10^th September 2019 of the Honourable Magistrate of Bandarawela in case No 1722 (නෙරපීම),

f) Set aside the Order dated 18^th January 2022 of his Lordship the High Court Judge of Badulla in case No 94/2019,

g) For costs, h) For such other and further reliefs.

Facts of this case

3) The Petitioner had sought in the prayer of the petition to set aside the Learned Magistrate’s Order dated 10^th September 2019 and to set aside the Learned High Court Judge’s Order dated 18th January 2022.

4) This action pertains to the recovery of possession of state land, filed by the Competent Authority in the Magistrate’s Court of Bandarawela.

5) The Magistrate had reviewed the facts, documents and granted the Respondent-Competent Authority, permission to evict the Petitioner and his occupants who were in possession of the quarters on the state land.

6) Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the Petitioner had filed a revision application in the Provincial High Court of Badulla. The Learned High Court Judge, having considered the relevant facts, had dismissed the Petitioner’s revision application and had affirmed the Order of the Learned Magistrate.

7) Aggrieved by the aforementioned High Court Order, the Petitioner had filed this revision application to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court, on the grounds that the Learned High Court Judge had failed to consider the quit notice under Section 3 of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979, which had not been served on the Petitioner.

8) Furthermore, the Petitioner had asserted that the identification of the land was ambiguous in the application submitted by the Respondent to the Magistrate’s Court.

9) As per the Petitioner, the aforementioned grounds had not been considered by the Learned High Court Judge in the revision application filed by the Petitioner in the High Court of Badulla.

10) In light of this, the Petitioner had sought the reliefs prayed for in the petition.

Disputed facts

11) When this petition was supported by the Counsel for the Petitioner on 16th October 2024, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent objected to the application and argued that there was no merit in proceeding with the matter. After hearing the arguments on the application, the matter was adjourned for an Order.

12) Considering the facts pertinent to this case and the arguments presented by the Counsels, I am of the view that the following disputed points should be examined to determine whether the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked;

I. Was the Learned Magistrate's Order dated 10th September 2019 properly evaluated by the Learned High Court Judge, taking into account the disputes raised by the Petitioner in the High Court?

II. If so, can