LEELAWATHIE
VS.
PERERA

SUPREME COURT
DR.SHIRANIA. BANDARANAYAKE,CJ.
SRIPAVAN,J .AND
I.IMAM,J
S.C.APPEAL NO. 166/2010
S.C.(HC)CALA NO. 281/2010
HCCA ANURADHAPURA
No. NCP/HCCA/ARP/350/07
D.C.ANURADHAPURA NO. 18177/L
OCTOBER 3RD ,2011

Land Development Ordinance - Sections 2, 19 (A), 25, Definition of a 'permit holder'- occupation vital.

When this appeal was taken up for hearing the parties agreed that the only issue in this appeal that has to be considered would be the interpretation of the term 'Permit Holder' in terms of the Land Development Ordinance.

The Appellant contended that although the Appellant's husband did not possess a permit in terms of the Land Development Ordinance, as he was in occupation of the land In dispute, he would come within the second limb of Section 2 of the Land Development Ordinance. Admittedly, there was no permit issued to the Appellant's deceased husband in terms of Section 25 of the Land Development Ordinance. The question that arose was as to whether the Appellant could claim to be the successor of her deceased husband as a permit holder.

(1) In terms of Section 2 of the Land Development Ordinance, as amended, although no permit has been actually issued to a person, he could still be regarded as a permit holder provided that he had been in occupation of that land.

(2) If a spouse of a permit holder fails to enter Into possession of the land or holding in question within a period of six months from the date of the death of the permit-holder, the spouse is not entitled to claim succession to the land so held by the deceased husband as a permit­ holder.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the North Central Province holden in Anuradhapura.

Cases referred to :

(1) Kassim Hameedu Lebbe Vs. M. Sultan Samoon - (1968) 71 N.L.R. 452

(2) Gunawardena V. Rosalin - (1960) 62 N.L.R. 213

M.U.M. Ali Sabry with Erusha Kalidasa for Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant C.E.de Silva for Defendant - Appellant - Respondent

Cur. adv. vult

November 15, 2012
DR.SHIRANIA. BANDARANAYAKE, CJ.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the North Central Province holden in Anuradhapura (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Appellate High Court) dated 28-07-2010. By that judgment the High Court had set aside the judgment of the District Court of Anuradhapura (hereinafter referred to as the District Court) dated 15-02-2006, which was in favour of the plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and allowed the appeal of the defendant-appellant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).

Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant preferred an application before this Court Seeking leave to appeal on which said leave was granted by this Court.

The facts of this appeal, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, albeit brief, are as follows:

The appellant had preferred an application before the District Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration that she is entitled to the possession of the property in dispute and to eject the respondent from the premises in suit. It was her position that her husband was a permit-holder of the land in dispute, which possession was handed over to him by the Mahaweli Authority (P1). After the death of the appellant's husband, she claimed that in terms of Section 48 of the Land Development Ordinance, she became the permit holder and had been carrying on the cultivating of the said land. The respondent had claimed that he is in possession of the said land since 1985 and had denied the fact that the appellant's husband was the permit-holder. The District Court granted relief as prayed for in the appellant's plaint.

Being aggrieved by the said decision the respondent had preferred an appeal to the High Court, which was allowed by its judgment dated 28-07-2010.

When this appeal was taken for hearing learned