Walloopillai V. Manders G.A. (Province Of Sabaragamuwa)

1951 Present: Gratiaen J. and Pulle J.

WALLOOPILLAI, Appellant, and MANDERS (Government Agent,
 Province of Sabaragamuwa), Respondent

S. C. 121-D. C. Ratnapura, 70

Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950-Section 61-Retrospective operation-Interpretation Ordinance, s. 6 (3) (b) (c)-Land Acquisition Ordinance (Cap. 203)--Order made thereunder-Right of appeal.

Where proceedings under the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Cap. 203) were pending before a Government Agent prior to the date when the Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950, came into operation, and a libel of reference was filed subsequent to that date, in the District Court, under section 11 (d) of the Land Acquisition Ordinance- .

Held, that the Government Agent was not entitled, without the consent of the person to whom compensation was payable, to avail himself of the provisions of section 61 of the Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950, in order to have the amount of compensation referred by the District Court to the Board of Review for determination.

Held further, that the order of reference erroneously made by the District Court was appealable.

Government Agent, Central Province v. Evan (1881)4 S. C. C. 151 followed.

Kanagasunderam v. Podihamine (1940) 42 N. L. R. 97 not followed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of Ratnapura,

C. E. Jayawardene for the defendant appellant.

V. Tennekoon, Crown Counsel, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

December 7, 1951. GRATIAEN J.-

In May, 1949, the Government Agent of the Sabaragamuwa Province, on the directions of the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, took steps under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Cap. 203) for the acquisition of certain immovable property in the Ratnapura District belonging to the appellant. In due course, namely, on the 6th February, 1950, the appellant was tendered a sum of Rs. 25,784, being the sum determined by the Government Agent as compensation, but as this offer was rejected by the appellant, a libel of reference was filed on 31st October, 1950, under section 11 (d) of the Ordinance referring the dispute to the District Court of Ratnapura for its adjudication.

In the meantime the Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950, had come into operation on 9th March, 1950-i.e., 71/2 months before the proceedings were instituted in the District Court. Section 60 repealed the Land Acquisition Ordinance. It is nevertheless clear that, by reason of section 6 (3) (b) of the Interpretation Ordinance, such repeal could not, " in the absence of any express provision to that effect ", affect the right previously acquired by the appellant to have the existing dispute regarding the amount of compensation payable to him determined by

judicial process in accordance with the provisions of the earlier enactment. Vide Hamilton Gell v. White1[(1922) 2 K. B. 422.] in which the corresponding section of the Interpretation Act, 1889, was considered by the Court of Appeal, and Yonder Poorten v. The Settlement Officer2[ (1947) 48 N. L. R. 361.].

The only extent to which, in the submission of the Grown, this vested right of the appellant has been curtailed is to be found in section 61 which declares as follows :-

"61. Where any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Ordinance, whether those proceedings are proceedings instituted in the District Court under section 11 of that Ordinance or are any other proceedings, are pending or incompleted on the date on which the Act comes into force and the only question for determination in those proceedings is in regard to the amount of compensation payable to any person or persons, that question shall, if any party to those proceedings who is interested in that question so desires, be referred to the Board of Review for determination ; and the Board shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, hear and determine that question in acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document