WERAGAMA

Vs.

COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF AGRARIAN DEVELOPMENT

SUPREME COURT
ALUWIHARE, J.
KODAGOOA, J.
J. DE SILVA, J.
SC/APPEAL/55/2017
SC/SPL/LA/231/2016
CA/WRIT/317/2016
JULY 7, 2021

Writ of certiorari-Agrarian Development Act, No. 46 of 2000, sections 22(1), 22(2), 28(1), 29, 31(1), 31(2), 31(3), 33(1), 83, 100-Long title-Preamble-Scope and purpose of the Act-Non-agricultural land-Powers of the Commissioner General of Agrarian Development-Statutory interpretation-Severance

The appellant, who was the owner off our parcels of land, requested the respondent Commissioner General of Agrarian Services to declare the lands as highlands. The respondent acting in terms of section 28 of the Agrarian Development Act, No. 46 of 2000, declared that the lands are not paddy lands and further imposed four conditions to be satisfied in order for the lands to be utilised for non-agricultural purposes.

The appellant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the decision to impose the four conditions on the ground that the respondent Commissioner lacked the power to impose such conditions on the use of non-agricultural land. The Court of Appeal held that the provisions of the Act, specifically section 28(1), empower the respondent to protect both paddy and agricultural land. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held:

1. Part of the object, scope and purpose of the Agrarian Development Act is to provide for the utilisation of agricultural lands in accordance with agricultural policies. That goal is pursued by restricting the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

2. Any restrictions on the cultivation or management of agricultural lands are sought to be done by the Act by the standards of cultivation provided in the Act or regulations made there under.

3. An exercise of power will be referable to a jurisdiction that confers validity upon it and not to a jurisdiction under which such exercise would be nugatory.

4. The whole Act must be examined to ascertain the true limits of the powers of the Commissioner General of Agrarian Development in imposing terms and conditions on the use of agricultural land.

5. In an appropriate case, a writ of certiorari will lie to quash an unlawful part of an administrative decision while leaving the remainder intact.

Cases referred to:

1. Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co Ltd and others AIR (2001) Supreme Court 724

2. Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co Ltd v. Hector Riche (1875) LR 653

3. Attorney General v. Great Eastern Railway Co (1880) 5 AC 473

4. Ranatunge v. Commissioner General of Agrarian Development and another (CA/WRIT/180/2017. CA Minutes of 17.07.2019)

5. Peiris v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue 65 NLR 457

6. Thames Water Authority v. Elmbridge Borough Council (1983) 108570

7. Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport, Ex p. Greater London Council (1985) 3 WLR 574

8. Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v. Ayelsbury Mushrooms Ltd (1972) 1 WLR 190

9. R v. North Hertfordshire District Council, Exp. Cobbold (1985) 3 All ER 486

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Dulindra Weerasuriya, P.C., with Pasan Malinda for the Petitioner Appellant.

Rajitha Perera, S.S.C., for the Respondent-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

December 7, 2021

J. DE SILVA, J.

The Petitioner-Appellant (herein after referred to as "Appellant") owns four parts of land containing in total R.1 P. 9.56. By letter dated 04.01.2016 (P4), he asked the Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services of Matale to declare these highlands. Permission was also sought to grow trees on the earth.

The Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") in a letter dated 24.03.2016 (P11) stated that the said lands are not paddy land. He claimed to do so under section 28 of the Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 as amended (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). In that letter, he sought to impose four conditions that mu