BALANGODA PLANTATIONS PLC

BALANGODA PLANTATIONS PLC

Vs.

JANATHA ESTATES DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
OBEYESEKERE, J.
CA/WRIT/858/2009
SEPTEMBER 6, 2018

Writ of prohibition-Land Reform Law, No 1 of 1972, sections 22, 27A and 42A-Powers of the Land Reform Commission-Ultra vires decisions

The petitioner filed this application seeking a writ of prohibition restraining the Land Reform Commission (LRC) from interfering in any manner with the petitioner's lawful possession and occupation of any of the agricultural lands and estate lands referred to in the lease agreements entered into by the petitioner and the 1st and 2nd respondents.

Held:

1. While an order made by the Minister under section 27 A(1) of the Land Reform Law, No.1 of 1972, as amended, subsists, the LRC cannot exercise any power in respect of lands which were vested with it in terms of section 42A of the Law.

2. The agricultural and estate lands referred to in the orders of the Minister vested with the 1st and 2nd respondents together with all rights and liabilities of the LRC in respect of such lands.

3. The LRC acted ultra vires when it executed leases after the said orders came into effect.

Cases referred to:

1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service 1985 AC 374

2. Kelani Valley Plantation PLC v. Janatha Estate Development Board and others (CA/WRIT/657/2011, CA Minutes of 3.06.2016)

APPLICATION for Writ of Prohibition.

Maithri Wickremasinghe, P.C., with Rakitha Jayatunga for the Petitioner.

Susantha Balapatabendi, P.C., A.S.G., with Maithri Amarasinghe Jayathilake, S.C., for the 1st, 2nd 3rd, and 6th Respondents.

Dr. Sunii Coorey with Malika Ranasinghe for the 4th and 5th Respondents.

cur. adv. vult.

November 7, 2019

OBEYESEKERE, J.

The Petitioner has filed this application seeking inter alia the following relief:

(a) A Writ of Prohibition restraining the 4th Respondent, the Land Reform Commission from issuing any permits, approvals or exercising any other authority in respect of the agricultural lands and estate lands which are referred to in the lease agreements annexed to the petition marked 'P6(i)' - 'P6(xxiv)';

(b) A Writ of Prohibition restraining the 4th Respondent from interfering in any manner with the lawful possession and occupation of the Petitioner with regard to any of the agricultural lands and estate lands referred to the said lease agreements annexed to the petition marked 'P6(i)'" 'P6(xxiv)'.

The Petitioner, who is the lessee under the said lease agreements marked 'P6(i)'" 'P6(xxiv)' states that in 2005, it instituted action in terms of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979, as amended, seeking to evict from Palm Garden Estate (which is an estate leased to the Petitioner by the 2nd Respondent) a person by the name of Kumaravel, who had served as a driver at the Petitioner's Office in Ratnapura. At the inquiry held before the Magistrate's Court of Ratnapura, the said Kumaravel had produced a permit dated 8th May 1994 issued by the

4th Respondent, annexed to the petition marked 'P10' by which the 4th Respondent had authorised the said Kumaravel to occupy an extent of 20 perches land situated within the said estate. The Petitioner states further that the said Kumaravel had produced a receipt to confirm that it had paid the 4th Respondent a sum of Rs. 816.75 as lease rental for the period 1994 - 2004. It is the position of the Petitioner that even though the said estate land had vested with the 4th Respondent, the title to the said estate has subsequently vested with the 2nd Respondent, the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation, and therefore the alienation of any land situated within the said estate by the 4th Respondent is illegal. The Petitioner states that while it is not seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the said lease in favour of Kumaravel, it is seeking a Writ of Prohibition to restrain the 4th Respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document