RECOVERY OF STATE LAND AND REVISION
ASOKA SAMAN KUMARA JAYALATH v. POLPITIGE MARY NELKA PERERA
Court of Appeal – CA/PHC/0155/2019 – Decided on 24 October 2025 - Before: K. M. S. Dissanayake, J., and D. Thotawatta, J.
State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979 (as amended) Sections 5, 10(1) and 10(2) – High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990, Section 5, Revision vs. Appeal Whether revision lies where the right of appeal is barred Jurisdiction of Provincial High Courts, Misinterpretation of statutory bar Extraordinary jurisdiction of revision – Principle of justice and error correction – Mariam Beebee v. Seyed Mohamed (68 NLR 36), Somawathie v. Madawela (1983 2 SLR 15), Sunil Chandra Kumar v. Veloo (2001 3 SLR 91), Attorney-General v. Podisingho (51 NLR 385).
Facts
The Competent Authority of the Provincial Department of Education, North Western Province, filed an application before the Magistrate’s Court of Chilaw under Section 5 of the State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979, seeking ejectment of the appellant from State land.
The
Magistrate, after inquiry, made an order under Section 10(1) directing
immediate ejectment.
Aggrieved, the appellant invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court of the North Western Province at Chilaw.
The
High Court, however, dismissed the revision application, holding that Section 5
of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990
allows only appeals, not revisions, from orders made by Magistrates under
Section 10 of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act.
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that the High Court erred in law in holding that no revision lay against an ejectment order made under Section 10(1), particularly since Section 10(2) expressly prohibits only appeals and not revisions.
Held - Per K. M. S. Dissanayake, J. (D. Thotawatta, J. agreeing): Right of Appeal vs. Right of Revision Distinguished:
The absence of an appeal does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise revisionary powers. The power of revision is extraordinary, supervisory, and independent of the appellate jurisdiction. Its purpose is to ensure the due administration of justice and to correct miscarriages of justice where no appeal lies.
Section 10(2) of the State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act – Bar limited to appeals: Section 10(2) expressly provides that “no appeal shall lie against any order of ejectment made by a Magistrate.”
This prohibition does not extend to revisionary jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court erred in treating the statutory bar against appeals as a bar against revision.
Section 5 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act interpreted: Section 5 merely provides for the procedure applicable to appeals and revisions to the High Court. It does not create or extinguish any substantive right of appeal or revision.
The High Court’s reasoning that the provision excludes revisionary applications is a misreading and a grave misinterpretation of the statute Power of Revision as an Independent Judicial Function:
Referring
to Mariam Beebee v. Seyed Mohamed (68 NLR 36), the Court reaffirmed that the
revisionary jurisdiction exists to correct injustice whether committed by
subordinate courts or, in rare cases, even by higher courts themselves.
The principle was reaffirmed in Somawathie v. Madawela (1983 2 SLR 15) and Gunarathna v. Thambinayagam (1993 2 SLR 355), which recognized revision as a distinct judicial power aimed at preventing miscarriage of justice.
Revision
lies even when an appeal is available—or unavailable:
The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that the power of revision may be invoked even:
When no right of appeal exists (Sunil Chandra Kumar v. Veloo 2001 3 SLR 91)
When a right of appeal exists but is inadequate (Attorney-General v. Podisingho 51 NLR 385), or
Even
after the right of appeal has been exercised (K.A. Potman v. Inspector of
Police, Dodangoda 74 NLR 115).
Thus,
the absence of appeal under Section 10(2) reinforces—rather than restricts—the
need for revisionary review.
High Court’s Error in Law:
The
High Court misdirected itself by treating the statutory silence regarding
revision as an exclusion.
Statutory
bars are to be strictly construed; unless a law expressly removes the power of
revision, the High Court retains its supervisory jurisdiction in the interest
of justice.
Order Set Aside and Directions Issued:
The
Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in dismissing the revision
application in limine.
The
order of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted for hearing
on the threshold issue—namely, whether notice should issue to the respondents
and whether a prima facie case existed warranting full inquiry into the
revision application
Final Order:
Appeal
allowed. Order of the High Court set aside.
Directions
issued to proceed with the revision application according to law.
No
order as to costs.
Principles
of Law Reaffirmed
1. Revision is distinct from appeal Mariam Beebee v. Seyed Mohamed (68 NLR 36): revision is a discretionary, extraordinary jurisdiction aimed at preventing injustice.
2.
Statutory bar against appeals does not exclude revision A prohibition of appeal under Section 10(2) does not affect the
High Court’s inherent revisionary power.
3.
Section 5 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act is
procedural only It regulates procedure
for appeals and revisions but does not create or deny substantive rights.
4.
Revision may lie even where appeal exists or has been exercised Attorney-General v. Podisingho (51 NLR 385);
K.A. Potman v. Inspector of Police (74 NLR 115).
5.
Revisionary power ensures justice where no appeal lies Sunil Chandra Kumar v. Veloo (2001 3 SLR 91).
6.
Misinterpretation of jurisdiction is a substantial error of law A court’s failure to exercise jurisdiction
where law permits constitutes a reversible legal error.
Ratio
Decidendi
Where Section 10(2) of the State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act bars an appeal from a Magistrate’s order of ejectment, the High Court nevertheless retains revisionary jurisdiction to review such orders in appropriate circumstances. The absence of a right of appeal strengthens, rather than weakens, the supervisory role of revision in the administration of justice. The dismissal of a revision application solely on the ground that no appeal lies constitutes a misdirection in law and a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Significance of the Decision
This judgment provides a comprehensive clarification of the interplay between appeal and revision in the context of State Land (Recovery of Possession) proceedings. It reaffirms that the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction is inherent, supervisory, and cannot be ousted by implication, unless expressly prohibited by statute. The Court thus preserves a vital judicial safeguard against procedural injustice, ensuring that administrative action concerning State land remains subject to judicial oversight.
Comments
Post a Comment