Writ jurisdiction is unsuited to resolve disputed facts of ownership; parties must seek declaratory relief in a competent civil forum.

-

 

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

W.H.M. Gunaratne (deceased), Vishwa Jayawardena (deceased), Udage Gayan Wijeypala, and K. Karthigesan v. Land Reform Commission and Others
SC Appeal 162/2013 – Decided September 8, 2025
Before: Surasena CJ, Janak De Silva J, Sampath B. Abayakoon J.

1. Land—State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act—Competent Authority – Quit notices – Judicial review.
The Chairman of the Land Reform Commission, acting as Competent Authority under §3 of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979, issued quit notices requiring appellants to vacate land described as Allington Estate. The appellants challenged the notices by writ of certiorari. Held: Once the Competent Authority forms an opinion that land is State land and that persons are in unauthorized occupation, issuance of quit notices is within statutory authority; writ jurisdiction will not control such discretionary opinion absent illegality.

2. Land – Title disputes – Appropriateness of writ jurisdiction.
Where competing claims of ownership exist, including statutory declarations under the Land Reform Law and conflicting District Court decrees obtained without necessary parties, title is in serious dispute. Held: Writ jurisdiction is unsuited to resolve disputed facts of ownership; parties must seek declaratory relief in a competent civil forum.

3. Land Reform – Vesting and statutory lease.
Under §3(2) of the Land Reform Law No. 1 of 1972, agricultural land held in excess of the statutory ceiling automatically vests in the Land Reform Commission, and the former owner becomes a statutory lessee. Held: Original owner Ismail, who exceeded the ceiling, remained the statutory lessee notwithstanding uncompleted sales; appellants claiming through declarations unsupported by deed had no valid ownership.

4. Remedies – Recovery of possession – Alternative relief.
Persons aggrieved by ejectment under the Act may institute action for compensation against the State within 6 months under §12. Held: Appellants’ remedy lies in civil action or compensation claim, not by writ.

Disposition

All questions of law answered in the negative. Appeal dismissed. The appellants were awarded costs of Rs. 50,000.


CLICK 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

-
Image
  TRUST - A presentation -  October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER   [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader]     "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER     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 presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI  ...
Read more

some selected

-
Image
  Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o...  read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...
Read more

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

-
Image
  The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand]​​  The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd  defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property.  The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...
Read more