HERATH

Vs.

MORGAN ENGINEERING (PVT) LTD

SUPREME COURT
PIERIS, C.J.
SRlPAVAN,J.
RATNAYAKE,J.
SC/APPEAL/214/2012
SC/SPL/LA/19/12
CA/PHC/APN/158/06
HC REV/512/04
MC FORT 58439
MAY 13, 2013

State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act, No. 7 of 1979, section 9(1)-"a valid permit or other written authority of the State granted in accordance with any written law"

The petitioner, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, filed an application under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act to eject the respondent from the land in suit, which the respondent conceded is "state land" within the meaning of the Act.

Section 9(1) of the Act enacts that at the inquiry before the Magistrate's Court, the person summoned "shall not be entitled to contest any of the matters stated in the application under section 5 except that such person may establish 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."

The respondent took up the position that the payment of rent evident by the written receipts read together with X1 and X2 had in effect created a monthly tenancy by itself and constituted written authority given to the respondent and, until the said written authority is legally revoked, he cannot be ejected under the Act.

The document marked X2 contemplates (a) handing over possession of the premises in question by the field officer; (b) payment of rent based on a valuation obtained by the chief valuer; (c) entering into a lease agreement; and (d) payment of Rs. 3,000 and one month's rent in a show of good faith. X1 is a document bv which possession of the land was

handed over to the respondent on the undertaking that the respondent would enter into a lawful lease agreement with the petitioner as soon as possible. However, no lease agreement was entered into by the respondent with the petitioner despite several reminders.

The Magistrate's Court ordered the ejection of the respondent but, on appeal, the Court of Appeal accepted the respondent's contention and allowed the appeal. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held:

1. The clear objective of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act is to provide an expeditious method of recovery of "state land" without the state being forced to go through a cumbersome process of protracted civil action and consequent appeals.

2. "Monthly tenancy" without a formal lease does not suffice for the purpose of resisting an application under the Act. Payment of monthly rentals and acceptance of the same by the petitioner do not amount to "written authority granted in accordance with any written law". Nor do the documents X1 and X2 constitute the same.

Cases referred to:

1. lhalapathirana v. Bulankulame, Director General, UDA [1988] 1 Sri LR 416
2. Farook v. Urban Development Authority (CA/357/89, CA Minutes of 21.08.1996)
3. Mohamed v. Land Reform Commission and another [1996] 2 Sri LR 124

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Sanjeewa Jayawardene, P.C., with Sandamali Chandrasekera for the Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner.

Johann Corera for the Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

June 27, 2013

SRIPAVAN, J.

The Complainant-Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner'') sought, inter alia, to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 10-01-12 whereby the said Court set aside

the judgment of the High Court of Colombo dated 26-09-06 which affirmed the Order of the Magistrate Court of Colombo dated 14-01-04. The Petitioner and the Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") conceded that the land which is the subject matter of the application is a "State Land" falling within the ambit of the provisions of the State La