Suffragam Rubber And Tea Co., Ltd. V. Muhsin, M.J.M.

1953 Present: Gratiaen J.

SUFFRAGAM RUBBER AND TEA CO., LTD., Petitioner, and
M. J. M. MUHSIN (A. G. A., Ratnapura), Respondent

S. C. 169-In the matter of an Application for a Mandate in the
nature of a Writ of Prohibition under section 42 of the
Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6).
 

Writ of Prohibition-Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950 - Order for taking immediate possession of a land--Effect of-Claim for compensation-Scope of acquiring officer's inquiry--Sections 4, 5, 9, 10, 16, 36, 37, 41-Construction of statute-Power of Court to fill in gaps.

Where, by virtue of the special powers vested in him under proviso (a) to section 36 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands makes order directing an " acquiring officer " to take immediate possession of a land on. the ground of urgency, the property vests absolutely in the Crown from the date of the publication of the order in the Gazette, and the " acquiring officer " has no jurisdiction thereafter to commence or continue (once commenced) an inquiry into claims for compensation under section 9 or to make an award under section 16. In such cases, the common law jurisdiction of the regular Courts of Justice to determine disputes between the private individual (whose property has been compulsorily acquired) and the Crown has not been superseded by the Act either expressly or by necessary implication.

"In the construction of a statute ' the duty of the Court'-and a fortiori the duty of a tribunal created by the statute- is limited to interpreting the words used by the Legislature, and it has no power to fill in any gaps disclosed. To do so would be to usurp the function of the Legislature."

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition.

 H. V. Perera, Q .C., with D. S. Jayawickreme, for the petitioner.

Walter Jayawardene, Crown Counsel, with G. F. Sethukavaler, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.

July 17, 1953. GRATIAEN J.-

The petitioner is a company with limited liability and was the owner in the Ratnapura District of an estate a portion of which was known as Galkaduwa Division. The respondent is the Assistant Government Agent of the District and, by virtue of his office, is an " acquiring officer " within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act No. 9 of 1950.

On 28th May, 1951, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, exercising the special powers vested in him under proviso (a) to sec. 36 of the Act, had made an order directing the respondent to take possession of Galkaduwa Division on behalf of the Crown. This order was duly published in the Gazette on 30th May, 1951, and the property accordingly vested absolutely in the Crown with effect from that date (sec. 37). In the result the Company was automatically and by operation of law divested of its former title to this extent of land (hereinafter referred to for convenience as " the property ".)

It is necessary to record in this connection that, prior to 28th May 1951, the respondent had, on the Minister's direction, already initiated steps with a view to the acquisition of the property in accordance with the more normal procedure commencing with sec. 4 of the Act. Had that procedure been continued to its logical conclusion, the company would have enjoyed the opportunity, if so advised, of making representations against the proposed compulsory acquisition of its property for a public purpose. This valuable right was however lost when the Minister later decided, on the ground of urgency, that it had become necessary to vest the property forthwith in the Crown, thereby depriving the Company of the opportunity of showing cause why the proposed acquisition should not take place.

Notwithstanding the effect of the Minister's statutory order to which I have previously referred, the respondent purported to proceed, in respect of the property, with the various steps prescribed in the Act for the ultimate vesting of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document