RECOVERY OF STATE LAND

-

 


Summary of the Judgment:

This judgment of the Court of Appeal relates to an appeal filed by Dasanayakalage Karunaratne alias David Singno against the Competent Authority, Plantation Management Monitoring Division. The case involves the recovery of possession of a state land. The Appellant had initially filed a revision application in the High Court of Ratnapura, which was dismissed, leading to this appeal.

Legal Matters Discussed:

1. Recovery of State Land: The primary legal issue is the recovery of possession of state land as per the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979.

2. Notice to Quit: The Appellant contested the notice to quit.

3. Validity of Deeds: The Appellant argued that the deeds in favor of his possession were not considered.

4. Jurisdiction of Magistrate: The legality of the Magistrate's decision to eject the Appellant from the land without validating his claims to possession was questioned.

5. Revisionary Jurisdiction: The appeal involved the application of revisionary jurisdiction by the High Court, which is a discretionary remedy requiring the illegality to shock the conscience of the court.

Summary of Each Precedent Discussed:

1. Muhandiram v. Chairman, Janatha Estate Development Board (1992) 1 SLR 110:

In an inquiry under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act, the burden is on the person summoned to prove possession with a valid permit or other written authority. If this burden is not met, the Magistrate must order ejectment.

2. Namunukula Plantations PLC v. Nimal Punchihewa, Chairman, Land Reform Commission (CA(PHC) 29/16):

The identity of land in dispute can only be questioned to the extent of examining if the permit or authority held by the party summoned to show cause in respect of the state land in question. Any other disputes on land identity should be resolved in a different forum.

3. Divisional Secretary Kalutara v. Kalupahana Mestrige Jayatissa (SC Appeals 246, 247, 249, 250/14):

For a revisionary remedy to be granted, the impugned order must be illegal to a degree that shocks the court's conscience. The mere presence of illegality is not sufficient.

Decisions arrived at:

1. Appeal Dismissal: The appeal was dismissed because the Appellant failed to prove his rights to the land as required under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act.

2. Notice to Quit: The court upheld that there is no need for a receipt to prove that the notice to quit was received, as long as it was sent by registered post.

3. Revision Application: The High Court was justified in dismissing the revision application as the Appellant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or any substantial illegality in the Magistrate's decision.

4. Burden of Proof: The onus was on the Appellant to establish possession under a valid permit, which he failed to do, and the Magistrate's Court’s order to eject him was maintained.

5. Role of Magistrate: The Magistrate was not required to resolve disputes on land boundaries within this context, and such issues should be addressed in a different legal forum. In conclusion, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no error in the lower court’s application of the law, and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant.



CA (PHC) 47-2019 HC Ratnapura 

No. RA19-18 MC – Balangoda Case No. 65300

CA (PHC) 47-2019 3 


Dasanayakalage Karunaratne alias David Singno No. 03 Part, Hunuwala, Opanayake. 

Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant 

Vs. 

Wickrama ArachchilageLeelanath Wickrama Arachchi 

Competent Authority Plantation Management Monitoring Division Ministry of Plantation Industries 11th Floor, Sethsiripaya Battarmulla. 

Substituted – Plaintiff-respondent-respondet


JUDGMENT MAY BE ACCESSED AT courtofappeal.lk 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PARTITION ACTIONS- JUSTICE T B WEERASURIYA JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT

-
Image
Justice T B Weerasuriya- Judge of the S C                         PARTITION ACTIONS Hon. Justice Weerasuriya Retired. Judge of the Supreme Court PARTITION ACTIONS The Roman Dutch Law was made the common Law by the British by a Proclamation in 1799. After the said Proclamation, the Roman Dutch Law of Partition became applicable to the Island. Subsequently, several enactments had been promulgated to regulate the procedure for partition actions. The first of such enactment was the Ordinance No.21 of 1844. The provisions of this Ordinance were meant to provide co-owners with a more   certain and definite method of dividing their properties held in commonn The provisions of this Ordinance relating to partition were repealed by Ordinance No.ll of 1852. With the repeal of the provisions of Partition Ordinance No.21 of 1844, co-owners were remitted to their rights under the Roman Dutch Law, The Partition Ordinance No.10 of 1863 came into operation on ISt January
Read more

TRUST - A presentation

-
786 GALLELAW BLOGGER TRUST - October 29, 2016 TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission.   TRUST   786   It is well-known that in a developing society the proper application of the law of trust based on legal principles and equitable consideration can play a vital role in the economic development and proper dispensation of justice. The law of trust as is applied today in our country is a combination of equitable considerations mixed with legal principles. It may not be sensible to go into the historical background in which  the law of trust came to be introduced into our legal system because of the time restrain. As you all know the very first legislation enacted in field of Trust  Law is the Trust Ordinance  of No.9 of 1917 which came into operation on 16th April 1918 and has been amended from time to time. The amendments made to the Trust Ordnance todate are 4 in number. T
Read more

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 stage at which the default occ
Read more