PADMANADON

VS.

GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER

COURT OF APPEAL
NAWAZ, J. (P/CA)
RAJAKARUNA, J.
CA/MC/REV/28/2016
MC COLOMBO 63095/05/10
JULY 2, 2020

Revision-State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act, No. 7 of 1979, sections 8, 9(1)-Scope of the inquiry-Valid permit or other written authority of the state granted in accordance with any written law- Meaning of "any written law" - Who can grant such permission?

The General Manager, Department of Railways, as the competent authority, instituted proceedings in the Magistrate's Court under the provisions of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act, No. 7 of 1979, to evict the petitioner from the land described in the quit notice. It

was admitted that the land was state land (railway reserve). At the inquiry before the Magistrate's Court, the petitioner took up the position that he is in lawful occupation of the land on two lease agreements entered into with the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment (CWE) and therefore cannot be ejected under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act. The Magistrate's Court did not consider the two lease agreements as "a valid permit or other written authority of the state granted in accordance with any written law" in terms of section 9(1) of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act and ordered ejectment. The petitioner moved in revision.

Held :

1. At the inquiry under section 8 of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act, the only defence available to the occupier under section 9(1) is that "he is in possession or occupation of the land upon a valid permit or other written authority of the State granted in accordance with any written law and that such permit or authority is in force and not revoked or otherwise rendered invalid."

2. The term "any written law" in section 9(1) should be interpreted to mean any written law that deals with the authority and mechanism for disposition of state land.

3. The valid permit or other written authority should be granted by an official authorised by law to execute such power. The CWE had not been authorised by the Sri Lanka Railways or any other authority to lease out the land to the petitioner. Had the Sri Lanka Railways entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner, the situation would have been different.

4. The Magistrate's Court need not hold a prolonged inquiry to ascertain the validity of lease agreements.

5. If the petitioner thinks the competent authority acted ultra vires, he can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal or else file a civil action to vindicate his rights.

Cases referred to :

1. S.M. Ratnawathi Manike v. Mohiden Kasim Bibi and several others (SC/APPEAL/154/2015, SC Minutes of 10.11.2017)
2. Palisena v. Perera 56 NLR 407
3. Leelawathie v. Perera [2012] 1 Sri LR 246

4. Attorney General v. Wijesuriya 47 NLR 385
5. L.H.M.B.B. Herath v. Morgan Engineering Pvt Ltd (SC/APPEAL/214/2012, SC Minutes of 27.06.2017)
6. Mohandiram v. Chairman Janatha Estate Development Board [1992] 1 Sri LR 110
7. Muttuvelu v. Dias and another [2004] 2 Sri LR 335
8. lhalapathirana v. Bulankulama, Director General UDA [1988] 1 Sri LR 416
9. Muttiah Shanmugam (Sivapakim Shanmugam) v. J. M. C. Priyadarshani (CA/PHC/APN/113/2011 with CA/PHC/APN/68/2011, CA Minutes of 06.04.2017)
10. Walker Sons & Co Ltd v. Sri Lanka Ports Authority and another (CA/305/1990, CA Minutes of 15.06.1995)
11. Mohamed v. Land Reform Commission and another [1996] 2 Sri LR 124
12. Farook v. Gunawardena, Government Agent, Ampara [1980] 2 Sri LR 243
13. Pawittar Singh Walia v. Union Territory (Civil Writ Petition No.22898 of 2012, Punjab-Haryana High Court)
14. Goonathilake and others v. Thollappan [2007] 2 Sri LR 394

APPLICATION in Revision from the Judgment of the Magistrate's Court of Colombo.

K.G. Jinasena for the Respondent-Petitioner.

Vikum De Abrew, S.D.S.G., for the Applicant-Respondent.

c