In the Matter of the Forest Settlement Inquiry regarding the Land called Chetty Chena at Puttalam.

In the Matter of the Forest Settlement Inquiry regarding the
Land called Chetty Chena at Puttalam.
 

SEGO NAINA el al., Claimants.
 

" The Forest Ordinance, 1885 "-Inquiry by forest settlement officer-How far his decision binds Crown or claimants-Question of title-Land at the disposal of the Grown-Meaning of "try and determine " as used in s. 5 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1892.

In an inquiry under section 9 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1885 into claims made to certain lands proposed to be constituted a reserved forest, it appeared that for a quarter of a century there had been disputes between one set of claimants and the Crown as to the greater part, if not the whole, of such lands; that in contest with persons claiming title under the Crown, the claimants had obtained decrees in their favour from a competent court of justice for areas within the limits of such lands; that for some years there were negotiations for the settlement of disputes as to the whole area between the claimants and the Crown; and that at one time the Crown granted allotments within the limits of such lands to persons who, on complaint that they were not allowed to enter on those allotments by the claimants, had their payments of the price restored to them-

Held by Bonser, C. J., and Withers, J., that in these circumstances it was not a proper use of the Ordinance to apply it to the settlement of the disputes aforesaid between the Crown and the claimants, inasmuch as it was not intended by the Ordinance that an inquiry should be held under it into a claim to title which could only be effectively settled by action in a court of justice.

Lawrie, J., while having no doubt that, in the circumstances, the best course would have been, to have had the question of title decided in an action in the District Court, could not say that the course adopted by the Crown was illegal.

Per Withers, J. -If a forest settlement officer decides to reject a claim to any parcel of land, his decision is not binding on the claimant so as to conclude him from establishing his right of property in a court of law. If, on the other hand, the forest settlement officer decides that an area of the land is not at the disposal of the Crown, the Crown is not prevented from establishing its title in a court of law.

Per Lawrie, J. -The words "try and determine, " as used in section 5 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1892, do not mean a regular trial inter partes. They mean an inquiry at the close of which the forest settlement officer shall give a decision on the question of title, only for the purpose of the Ordinance, leaving to the claimant, if unsuccessful, his common law rights.

ON the 24th April, 1893, a notice was published by order of the Governor in the Government Gazette, under section 6 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1885, declaring that Government proposed to constitute certain lands in the District of Puttalam, described in the notice, a reserved forest, and naming Mr. H. L. Moysey Forest

Settlement Officer to inquire into claims. On the 31st May, 1893, Mr, Moysey, as such officer, published a notification as required by the Ordinance calling upon claimants to present written statements of claim before the 16th September following, or to appear before him at a place named in the notice on the 20th September and make personally statements of claim to him. On the 15th September Mr. Moysey received a written statement of claim from the claimants referred to above. He had already received a formal statement of claim on behalf of the Crown signed by the Assistant Government Agent of Puttalam. On the 20th September, 1893, he opened the inquiry, when the claimants appeared by counsel and took certain objections to the proceedings. The order on those objections was appealed from by the claimants, and after the return of the record from the Supreme Court the claims

Click Here to Read the rest of this document