Sivanathan V. Vanderpoorten

1957 Present: Weerasooriya, J., and Sansoni, J.

M. SIVANATHAN (Assistant Government Agent), Appellant,
and J. V. VANDERPOORTEN et al., Respondents

S. C. 99-D. C. (Inty.) Batticaloa, 84/L. A.

Land acquisition-Decision of Land Commissioner to acquire a land under Land Redemption Ordinance-Jurisdiction of District Court to question its validity- Land Redemption Ordinance, No. 61 of 1942, s. 3 (1) (4) (5)-Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950, ss. 5, 10.

Having regard to the limited and special jurisdiction of a District Court in land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, a District Court is not the proper forum to adjudicate on the validity of a determination made by the Land Commissioner that a particular land which is sought to be acquired by him is of the description contained in section 3 (1) of the Land Redemption Ordinance.

APPEAL from an order of the District Court, Batticaloa.

M. Tiruchelvam, Deputy Solicitor-General, with V. Tennekoon and

J. W. Subasinghe, Crown Counsel, for the plaintiff-appellant.

T. P. P. Goonetilleke, for the 1st defendant-respondent.

Walter Jayawardene, with M, Shanmuganathan, for the 2nd defendant-respondent.

Cur. adv. vult

June 18, 1957. WEERASOORIYA, J.-

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, as the acquiring officer, from a preliminary order of the District Judge in the course of proceedings initiated on a reference made to the District Court of Batticaloa under section 10 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act").

The reference came to be made as one of the steps taken under the Act for the acquisition of certain portions of a land called Mankai Mariamman Estate situated in the Batticaloa District. The plaint constituting the reference recites that at the inquiry held by the acquiring officer (under section 9 of the Act) the 1st and 2nd defendants, who are the only respondents who were represented at the hearing before us, between them claimed the entirety of the extent sought to be acquired while the 3rd and 4th defendants claimed 3/20 and 1/20 shares respectively and the 5th and 6th defendants by their attorney the 7th defendant, together claimed 2/20 shares ; that the acquiring officer at the conclusion of the said inquiry made a decision in regard to these claims and that the 1st and 2nd defendants applied in terms of section 10 (2) of the Act for a reference to Court of the dispute between them and the other claimants,

It would appear from the document P 10, which is the statutory notice of the decisions made by the plaintiff, that he allowed in full the respective claims of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants amounting to 6/20 shares, and that the balance shares were allotted among the 1st and 2nd defendants in the proportion of 9/20 to the 1st defendant and 5/20 to the 2nd defendant. The only matter, therefore, that arose for the determination of the Court on the reference before it was whether the 1st and 2nd defendants were between them entitled to the entirety of the land sought to be acquired to the exclusion of the other claimants.

While appropriate issues relating to this dispute were raised at the trial, counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd defendants also raised certain other issues the effect of which was to question the validity of the declaration made by the Minister under section 5 of the Act, the steps taken by the acquiring officer under the Act pursuant to that declaration and also the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the reference. These issues are numbered (1) to (4), and it was in view of them that counsel for the plaintiff framed the additional issues numbered (16) to (18) relating to the competency of the Court to go into those matters.

It is common ground that the acquisition proceedings commenced as a result of a determination made by the Land Commissioner, purporting to act under the provisions of the Land R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document