Matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court stands in the way of assuming jurisdiction under section 66 of PCP Act

-

  




SUBASHINI VS. OIC, TISSAMAHARAMA [CA]

 

2014 – SLR-Volume 1- Page 83

COURT OF APPEAL

ABDUL SALAM, J. (P/CA)

RAJAPAKSE, J.

CA PHC 128/2011

PHC HAMBANTOTA 7/2010, MC TISSAMAHARAMA 99595/09

FEBRUARY 18, 2014, SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

Primary Courts Procedure Act No. 44 of 1979 Section 66(1) (a) - Agricultural Development Act Section 90 - interference with Cultivation Rights of owner cultivator or occupier - Could the jurisdiction conferred under Section 66 be exercised? - Special Tribunal created to give specific remedy - Resort to that Tribunal?

Held:

(1) Where a statute created a right and in plain language gives a specific remedy or appoints a specific tribunal for its enforcement a party seeking to enforce the right must resort to that tribunal and not to others.

APPEAL from the Judgment of the provincial High Court (Hambantota)

Cases referred to:-

1. Mansoor vs. OIC Avissawella 1991 2 SLR 75

Anuruddha Dammika with Indika Jayaweera for 1st party petitioner - Appellant

Gamini Premathilake with Ranjith Henri for 2nd party respondent

02nd October 2014

A.W.A. SALAM, J (P/CA)

This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned High Court Judge of Hambantota. The learned High Court Judge in turn delivered his judgment, when the 1st party respondent petitioner Appellant sought a writ against the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute relating to paddy land with regard to right to cultivation and dispossession.

The learned Magistrate relying on Section 90 of the Agricultural Development Act has rejected the report filed under Section 66(1)(a) of Act No 44 of 1979, on the basis that the jurisdiction conferred under the said Section 66 cannot be exercised, when the legislature has conferred a particular relief over such disputes.

The learned Judge of the High Court has affirmed the decision of the learned Magistrate on the same premise relied upon by the Magistrate.

Section 90 of the Agrarian Development Act reads as follows. . .

"INTERFERENCE WITH CULTIVATION RIGHTS OF OWNER CULTIVATOR OR OCCUPIER.

90.(1) Where a complaint is made to the Commissioner general by any owner cultivator or occupier of agricultural land that any person is interfering with or attempting to interfere with the cultivation rights, threshing rights, rights of using a threshing floor, the right of removing agricultural produce or the right to the use of an agricultural road of such owner cultivator or occupier, the Commissioner General after inquiry may if he is satisfied that such interference or attempted interference will result in damage or loss of crop or livestock, issue an order on such person, cultivator or occupier requiring him to comply with such directions as may be specified in such order necessary for the protection of such rights:

Provided that an order under this section shall not be made for the eviction of any person from such agricultural land:

Provided further that an order issued under subsection(1)

shall not prejudice the right, title or interest of such person, cultivator or occupier to such land, crop or livestock in respect of which such order is made.

[2] For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of an order under subsection (1) the Commissioner - General may seek the assistance of a peace officer within whose area of authority such agricultural land in respect of which such order is made lies, and it shall be the duty of such Peace Officer to render such assistance as is sought and the Peace Officer may for such purpose use such force as may be necessary to ensure compliance with such order.

[3] An order under subsection (1) shall be binding on the person in respect of whom it is made until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.

[4] Any person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

[5] A certificate in writing issued by the Commissioner - General to the effect that the directions contained in an order made by him under subsection (1) has not been complied with by the person specified therein shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

In Mansoor vs. OIC Avissawella(1) this Court reiterated the principle that where a Statute creates a right and in plain language gives a specific remedy or appoints a specific tribunal for its enforcement a party seeking to enforce the right must resort to that tribunal and not to others.

Taking into consideration the Agricultural Development Law (Section 90) and the ratio in Mansoor Vs. OIC, Avissawella (supra), I am of the opinion that the appeal preferred merits no favourable consideration. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

SUNIL RAJAPAKSE, J. I agree.

Appeal dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more