IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Pandikoralalage Nilamani Ianthi Rranasinghe, No.409/14C, E.W.Perera Mawatha, Pitakotte.

Petitioner C.A. Writ No.06/2023 Vs

1. Saman Ranjan Ratnayake.

421/1/B, E.W.Perera Mawatha, Pitakotte.

2. I.M.V. Premalal, Mayor, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte Municipal Council, No.06, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

3. R.A.Shalika S. Ranaweera, Municipal Commissioner, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte Municipal Council, No.06, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

4. J. Thivahar, Municipal Engineer, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte Municipal Council, No.06, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

5. Mr. Nimesh Herath, Chairman, Urban Development Authority, 6^th and 7^th Floors, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla.

6. Urban Development Authority, 6^th and 7^th Floors, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. Respondents Before : N. Bandula Karunarthna, J. (P/CA)

M.Ahsan R.Marikar, J.

Counsel : Ranjan Gunarathna with H.G.H. Chathuri instructed by Sarath P.Walgamage for the Petitioner.

Dr. Sunil Cooray wih Diana Stephinie Rodrigo for the 01st Respondent.

Senani Dayaratne with Nishadi Wickramasinghe and Jayamini Tennekoon for the 02^nd to 04^th Respondents.

Shehan Soyza, SC for the 05^th and 06^th Respondents.

Argued on : 21.03.2023 Decided on : 25.05.2023 M. Ahsan R. Marikar, J.

Introduction

1) The Petitioner had instituted this action against the Respondents seeking to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court to restrain the 1^st Respondent from constructing a building on the 1^st Respondent’s land violating the building regulations enacted by the Urban Development Authority Gazette No. 392/9 dated 10^th March 1996 and sought the reliefs prayed for in the prayer of the petition dated 9th January 2023.

2) The instant matter to be considered is that, can the notices prayed for by the Petitioner and the interim orders sought be granted or not.

3) It is to be noted that the 2 restraining orders prayed for in the prayer (e) and (f) of the petition dated 9^th January 2023 are arising out of a dispute between two private individuals. That is a fact to be considered in deciding whether the said interim orders can be issued or not.

Facts pertinent to the Petitioner’s application

4) The contention of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is the joint owner with her husband of the property whose blind wall faces the rear of the 1^st Respondent’s house which is under construction.

5) The Petitioner had made complaints to the 2^nd Respondent by letter dated

25th August 2020 that the 1st Respondent had constructed a building on his land violating the building regulations enacted by the Urban Development Authority.

6) The said violations are as follows;

(i) The Petitioner states that under Section 26(1) of the UDA Gazette ‘there shall be the rear of every building and belonging exclusively to it an open space not less than 3 meters extending along the entire width of the building.’ The said provisions are violated by the 1^st Respondent.

(ii) Further, Section 61, 62 and 51(2)(b) are violated by the 1st Respondent by constructing a toilet, a septic tank and a soakage pit within the 3 meter area.

(iii) The 1^st Respondent has failed to provide adequate drainage facilities to drain off and convey the rain water from the roof or other approved outlets causing dampness to the walls or foundations of the Petitioner’s building and failed to take steps to safe guard the health of the Petitioner and the other occupants of her premises from the noxious odours emanating from the toilet constructed within the 3 meter open space.

7) The said facts are supported by the photographs marked and produced as X1, X2 and X6. Beside these facts the Petitioner had contended the 1^st Respondent was in the process of building a 4 storied building without obtaining the necessary approval. The foundation laid by the 1^st Respondent is only for a