Agrarian Rights and Roadway Access: The Court referred to previous decisions regarding the obstruction of agricultural access roads under Section 90(1) of the Agrarian Development Act, which provides guidelines for resolving such disputes. Principle Followed: The Court upheld the right of agricultural landowners to access roads for their agricultural activities, reinforcing the importance of maintaining such pathways for farming purposes.

 

Headnote Drawn by GaLLELawBlogger

W. A. R. Don Dharmawardena Petitioner Vs D. M. Nalinasekara

SC/APPEAL/04/2022

 

Background of the Judgment:

The case revolves around an application for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 13.12.2019 in case No. CA WRIT 406/2016. The petitioner, W. A. R. Don Dharmawardena, sought to contest the decision made under the Agrarian Development Act, No. 46 of 2000, where the Commissioner of Agrarian Development had ruled that the petitioner had obstructed a roadway claimed by the respondents.

The petitioner, who owns land in Avissawella, argued that the land had been fenced off and no roadway or footpath existed. He claimed to have constructed a roadway for his own use, which he later allowed the respondents to use as a footpath. The respondents, who owned land to the south of the petitioner’s, contended that they had been using the road since 1951 for agricultural purposes.

The Agrarian Development Commissioner, following an inquiry, ruled that the petitioner had obstructed the alleged roadway. This decision was later appealed in the Court of Appeal, which upheld the Commissioner’s ruling.

Arguments on Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner claimed ownership of the land and argued that the pathway in question was never a roadway but merely a footpath, which he allowed the respondents to use as a matter of courtesy.

He argued that there was no evidence to substantiate the claim that a 15-foot-wide roadway existed, as alleged by the respondents.

He contended that the decision of the Agrarian Development Commissioner was erroneous, as it ignored his evidence and misrepresented facts.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondents contended that they had been using the roadway for agricultural purposes since 1951, and their use had been continuous, including using vehicles and tractors.

They argued that the petitioner had obstructed their access to the roadway, which was detrimental to their agricultural rights.

The Commissioner’s inquiry revealed corroborative evidence from the Gramasevaka, confirming that the petitioner had blocked the roadway and conducted illegal gemming on the land.

Principles of Law Applied:

Agrarian Development Act, No. 46 of 2000 – Section 90(1):

The Court of Appeal relied on this section, which provides that the Commissioner of Agrarian Development has the authority to make orders regarding agricultural rights of way, particularly when obstruction occurs.

 

Nondisclosure of Material Facts:

The Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of disclosing all material facts before the court. The petitioner’s failure to disclose the pendency of the District Court case was considered significant in the dismissal of the appeal.

Provisional Orders and Substantive Rights:

The Court of Appeal held that the orders made by the Commissioner were provisional and did not affect the substantive rights of the parties involved. The substantive issue would be decided by the District Court, and until then, the Commissioner’s order would prevail.

 

Precedents Followed:

Agrarian Rights and Roadway Access:

The Court referred to previous decisions regarding the obstruction of agricultural access roads under Section 90(1) of the Agrarian Development Act, which provides guidelines for resolving such disputes.

Principle Followed:

The Court upheld the right of agricultural landowners to access roads for their agricultural activities, reinforcing the importance of maintaining such pathways for farming purposes.

Non-disclosure and Impact on Legal Proceedings:

The Court cited cases that emphasize the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings, particularly when material facts are withheld that could influence the outcome of a case.

Principle Followed:

Failure to disclose critical information can weaken a party's case and may lead to adverse consequences, as seen in the current case where the petitioner’s omission to mention the District Court case played a role in the dismissal.

Comments on the Judgment:

This case demonstartes the legal significance of ensuring the free flow of agricultural activities, particularly when disputes arise over land access. The ruling serves as a reminder that both parties must be diligent in presenting all material facts in legal proceedings to avoid prejudicing their case.

The Court's decision to allow the Commissioner’s provisional order to stand while awaiting a substantive judgment from the District Court is consistent with the principle that provisional orders have temporary effect and do not decide the ultimate rights of the parties.

While the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, there are strong arguments about the potential misinterpretation of evidence. The petitioner’s assertion that the roadway was a mere footpath appears plausible given the absence of conclusive historical evidence to support the respondents' claims of a long-standing roadway. However, the corroborative evidence presented by the respondents and the Gramasevaka supports the conclusion that the obstruction occurred, leading to the decision.

 

Decision:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The provisional orders issued by the Agrarian Development Commissioner were upheld, and the substantive issue would be decided by the respective District Court.

read judgment click here