Munasinghe Et Al., V. The Assistant Government Agent, Puttalam

[IN REVIEW.]

April 8,1910

 Present : Mr. Justice Middleton, Mr. Justice Wood
Renton, and Mr. Justice Grenier.

MUNASINGHE et al. v. THE ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT
AGENT, PUTTALAM.

D. C, Puttalam, 12.

Reference under the Waste Lands Ordinance-Crown-How far hound by estoppel-Evidence Ordinance, s. 115-Estoppel by conduct- Prerogative.

In this matter, which was a proceeding under the Waste Lands Ordinance, decree was entered of consent of parties (on March 20, 1904) whereby, inter alia, it was ordered that a survey should be made by a specified surveyor, and " that the Crown be and is hereby declared owner of all extents of land found by him to be Mukalana, chena, or forest above fifteen years of age; and in respect of the remainder thereof, whether abandoned fields, gardens, chena, or forest under fifteen years, it is declared that the plaintiffs be adjudged the owners thereof on payment by them to the Crown of a sum of Rs. 10 per acre."

The Surveyor-General, after the surveyor's death, forwarded to Court what purported to be a " survey of the land in execution of the commission." The defendant took no exception to the return; and the plaintiff when called upon deposited in Court " value due to the Crown for certain lots in accordance with the terms of the decree." The defendant then moved the Court for an adjudicationtion and investigation "as to what lots shown in the survey should be declared to be the property of the Crown and what to be those of the plaintiffs, in terms of the decree of March 20, 1904," and contended that the surveyor's return was faulty. The plaintiff urged that the Crown was estopped from challenging the return by having called upon the plaintiff to pay the value of the lots in terms of the surveyor's return.

Held, by Middletan J. and Wood Renton J. (Grenier J. dissen-tiente), that defendant was not estopped by his conduct from challenging the return.

The maxim that the Crown is not bound by estoppel is inapplicable to proceedings under the Waste Lands Ordinance.

THE facts of this case are fully set out in the judgment of Wood Renton J.

Walter Pereira, K.C., S.-G. (with him Maartensz, C.C.), for the appellant.-The conduct of the defendant does not estop him from contending that no proper return was made by the surveyor. The

April 8, 1910 fact that defendant called upon the plaintiff to pay the value of the specified lots is not by itself sufficient to estop him from questioning Assist- the validity of the return. The defendant made no representation which could have led the plaintiff to believe that defendant would ' not question the validity of the return. The Crown cannot, moreover, be bound by estoppels (see Halsbury's Laws of England, vol.' VI., 410). The Evidence Ordinance does not bind the Crown, as there is no express provision in it to that effect (Palaniappa Chetty v. Ismail Seidik 1).

o H. A. Jayewardene, for the first plaintiff, respondent.-The maxim that the Crown is not bound by estoppel does not apply to Ceylon, where the Crown has waived its rights not to be sued (Simon Appu v. Queen's Advocate 2). The plaintiffs have paid to the Crown the value of the land, improved the land, and mortgaged the land on the faith of the representations made by the Crown. The facts proved would estop the Crown from challenging the return. Apart from estoppel, there is a concluded agreement between the parties that the surveyor's return should be accepted. The plaintiffs paid the value of the lots assigned to them by the surveyor. The Crown was now bound by the agreement (Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago v. Bourne,3 Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Secretary of State,4 Ramsden v. Dyson 5).

Chitty, for second to sixth respondents.

E. W. Perera (with him Soertsz), for the third respondent.

Walter Pereira K.C., S.-G., in reply

Cur. adv. vult.

April 8, 1910. MIDDLETON J.-


A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document