Adithya Patabendige, J.

The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, seeking, inter alia,

i) A mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari, to quash the impugned decision of the 1^st Respondent, the Commissioner General of Lands, communicated by letter dated 29/07/2024, marked P8.

ii) A mandate in the nature of a writ of mandamus compelling the 1^st to 3^rd Respondents to issue a Permit or Grant in terms of Section 19 of the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) in respect of the land depicted as lot A in plan marked P7 together with other incidental reliefs.

In the light of the pleadings the following facts are undisputed.

• The grant bearing No. හ"/2/#/29216 (LL 75982), marked P1, had been issued to Kumastheru Liyanage Maginona in terms of Section 19(4) of the LDO.

• The 4^th and 5^th Respondents are siblings and children of the said Maginona.

• The mother of the Petitioner, Kumastheru Liyanage Sriyawathie is also a sibling of the above 4^th and 5^th Respondents.

• Maginona died on 30/09/1998 and her husband had predeceased her.

• The Petitioner and the 4^th Respondent subsequently made a joint application asserting the relevant portions of the land.

• Maginona had nominated the 5^th Respondent as her successor.

• After the death of Maginona, the nominated successor failed to succeed.

Although, a joint application was initially made by the Petitioner and the 4^th Respondent, a dispute had thereafter arisen between them. Following an inquiry conducted by the Land Commissioner, Southern Province, it was decided that the 4^th Respondent was entitled to succeed to the land of the deceased grantee, Maginona. This decision was conveyed to the Divisional Secretary of Ambalantota by the Commissioner General of Lands through the letter dated 20/07/2024 marked P8.

As noted earlier, the main question in this application concerns the legal consequences arising from the failure of the nominated successor to enter into possession of the land described in P1. Under the scheme of the LDO, nomination alone is insufficient to perfect the right of succession. The nominated successor must also comply with the statutory requirement of entering into possession within the prescribed period.

The Section 68 of the LDO sets out the circumstances in which either the surviving spouse or the nominated successor fails to succeed.

The Section 68 (1) addresses the failure of a spouse, while 68(2) specifically governs the failure of the nominated successor. The instant application is related to the nominated successor. Consequently, the legal effect of such failure must be assessed in terms of Section 68(2).

The section 68(2) states as follows;

A nominated successor fails to succeed to the land held on a permit by a permit holder who at the time of his or her death was paying an annual instalment by virtue of the provisions of section 19 or to the holding of an owner if he refuses to succeed to that land or holding, or, if the nominated successor does not enter into possession of that land or holding within a period of six months reckoned (I) where such permit-holder or owner dies without leaving behind his or her spouse, from the date of the death of such permit-holder or owner; or (ii) where such permit-holder or owner dies leaving behind his or her spouse, from the date of the failure of such spouse to succeed, such date being reckoned according to the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection

(1), or of the death of such spouse, as the case may be.

In terms of Section 72 of the LDO, if the nominated successor fails to succeed, the land or holding shall devolve as per the Rule 1 of the Third schedule.

Section 72 states thus;

If no successor has been nominated, or if the nominated successor fails to succeed, or if the nomination of a successor contravenes the provisions of this Ordinance, the title to the land alienated on a permit to a permit-holder who at the time of his or her death was paying an annual instalment by virtue of the provisions of section 19 or to the holding