HERATH VS. MORGAN ENGINEERING (PVT) LTD

HERATH VS. MORGAN ENGINEERING (PVT) LTD

SUPREME COURT
MOHAN PIERIS, PC, CJ.,
SRI PAVAN, J AND
RATNAYAKE, P.C., J.
S.C. APPEAL NO. 214/12
S. C. SPL.L.A. NO. 19/12
CA/PHC/APN/158/06
HC(REV.) 512/04
MC (FORT) CASE NO. 58439
MAY 13TH, 2013

State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979 - Section 9 - Scope of inquiry under the Act - Section 18 - Interpretation - State land -Land to which the State is lawfully entitled or which may be disposed by the State -Interpretation of Statutes.

State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act was enacted in order to make provision for the recovery of possession of "State Lands" from persons in unauthorized possession or occupation of the State Lands.

Held:

(1) If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be legitimate for the Courts to add words by implication into the language. It is a settled law of interpretation that the words are to be interpreted as they appear in the provision, simple and grammatical meaning is to be given to them, and nothing can be added or subtracted. The Courts must construe the words as they find it and cannot go outside the ambit of the Section and speculate as to what the legislature intended.

(2) In alienating "State Lands" the President of the Republic is mandatorily required to alienate or transfer state ownership in terms of the law.

per Sri pavan, J.-

"Assistance can be taken for purposes of interpretation of the phrase "written law" as found in the Constitution which is the

Supreme Law of the land. Whether it is the Constitution or the Act, the Courts must adopt a construction that will ensure the smooth and harmonious working of the Constitution or the Act as the case may be, considering the cause which induced the legislature in enacting it."

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

Cases referred to:

1. Ihalapathirana Vs. Bulankulama, Director General, U.D.A. (1988) 1 Sri L.R.

2. Farook Vs. Urban Development Authority- C.A. Appl. 357 /89; CA Minutes of 21.08.1996.

3. Mohamed Vs. Land Reform Commission and another- (1996) 2 Sri L.R. 124

APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

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

Viran Corera for the Respondent - Petitioner - Petitioner - Respondent

Cur.adv. vult.

July 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's 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 Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979 as amended.

This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal on 03-12-12 on the following questions:-

(a) Has the Court of Appeal substantially erred by misinterpreting the provisions of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act and its amendments and the specific definitions contained therein?

(b) Can the document X1 be classified as a lawful permit granted or any other written authority for the purposes of resisting an application for ejectment instituted under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act.

(c) Did the Court of Appeal err by failing to analyze the documents on record which amply demonstrate that the Respondent persistently neglected to execute

Click Here to Read the rest of this document