Dulfa Umma Et Al. V. Urban District Council

1939 Present: Abrahams C. J.

DULFA UMMA et al. v. URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL,
MATALE.

172-C. R. Matale, 4,737.

Urban District Council-Notice of action given by some plaintiffs only-Right to continue the action-Notice given to Chairman and not Secretary- Validity of notice-Form of notice-Local Government Ordinance, ss. 228 and 230.

Where an action was brought against an Urban District Council by several plaintiffs, some of whom had given notice of action and the others had not, the former may be allowed to continue the action in respect of their claim alone.

A communication addressed to the Chairman of the Urban District Council and received and considered by the Council is a valid notice of action under section 230 of the Local Government Ordinance, although it had not been addressed to the officer authorized by section 228 of the Ordinance to receive notices.

It would be a sufficient notice of action if it stated properly the injury complained of and disclosed an intention to bring an action, claiming specified relief.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Matale.

B. H. Aluwihare, for the plaintiffs, appellants.

C. E. S. Perera (with him S. N. B. Wijeyekoon), for the defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

January 31, 1939. ABRAHAMS C. J. -

This case has been admirably argued by Counsel on both sides, though the points taken were mostly of a highly technical nature. The appellants in this case brought an action against the Urban District Council of Matale for recovery of the sum of Rs. 286. 75 damages sustained by reason of the respondents having demolished a cement pavement and having encroached upon a piece of land belonging to the appellants for the purpose of constructing part of a public road.

Under section 230 of the Local Government Ordinance, No. 11 of 1920, no action shall be instituted against a District Council for anything done or intended to be done under the powers granted by the Ordinance or by any by-law or regulation made thereunder until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing shall have been given to the Council, stating with reasonable certainty the cause of such action and the name and place of abode of the intended plaintiff and of his proctor or agent, if any, in the cause.

On November 23, 1937, the plaint was filed. On August 30 of the same year, Mr. Sallay, Proctor, wrote the following letter to the Chairman of the Urban District Council, Matale: -

"Dear Sir,-My clients, Dulfa Umma, Abdul Sattar, and M. M. Haniffa (the latter as father and natural guardian of the minors, Abdul Sakkur and Abdul Rahouf), the owners of all those houses and premises bearing assessment No. 12, Taralanda Road, Matale, complain that some workmen of your Council without any intimation to them did demolish a pavement in extent 50 ft. by 3 ft., built opposite the said houses with bricks and cement, and build a drain taking in the said portion of pavement and also a portion of bare land, of the total extent of 97 ft. by 3 ft. My clients complain that their tenants in occupation of these houses are greatly aggrieved at the demolition of the said pavement, and have given notices to quit the said houses.

My clients are very greatly aggrieved that this arbitrary and highhanded method should have been adopted in this connection, especially because at the time the road was first widened a large portion of the said land was given to the Council without compensation.

My clients estimate the damages sustained by them at Rs. 500 and instruct me to demand the same from your Council, with further instructions to sue your Council in default of payment for the recovery of the same with costs of suit. I shall thank you for an early reply.

 Yours faithfully,
(Sgd. M. Y. SALLAY,
Proctor, S. C.?

and on September 8, Mr. Sallay followed up this letter by another in the following terms: -

Premises No. 1