084-NLR-NLR-V-17-GOVERNMENT-AGENT-,-SOUTHERN-PROVINCE,-v.-JAYASEKERA.pdf

( 250 )
1918.
♦
Presmt: Pereira J.
GOVERNMENT AGENT, SOUTHERN PROVINCE,v. JAYASEKERA.
302—C. E. Balapitiya, 9,322.
Notice by Government Agent calling upon person owning land adjoiningCrown land to make or renew boundary—May notice be signed byany other officer in his department ?—Ordinance No. 1 of 1844, s. 8,
Pebeiba J.—The statutory duty of issuing a notice in terms ofthe proviso to section 8 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1844 is expresslycast on the Government Agent or the Assistant Government Agent,and I doubt that the fact of such a notice being signed by an officerin the department of Government Agent or the Assistant Govern-ment Agent, even though he has official authority to sign noticesgenerally on behalf of the Government Agent or the AssistantGovernment Agent, is a sufficient compliance with the require-ments of the Ordinance.
I
N thi6 ca6e the Government Agent, Southern Province, sues thedefendant for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 69.58, being
double the cost of defining the boundaries of defendant’s landealled Polgahalanga at Batapola. The defendant sent a declara-tion to the Government Agent intimating his intention to open aplumbago pit in his land, which he had purchased from the Crownand which adjoins Crown land. The Government Agent sent anotice, in terms of Ordinance No. 1 of 1844. The notice was signed
( 251 )
by the Office Assistant. The defendant having failed -to define theboundaries the Government got it done.
The following issues were framed:—
Did the Government Agent or the Assistant Government
Agent issue a notice on defendant in terms of section8 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1844? If so, was that noticeserved on the defendant?
What was the amount spent by Government in defining
the boundaries?
Can the Government Agent maintain the action?
1M8.
GovernmentAgent,SouthernProvince, v.Jayaeaktra
The Acting Commissioner of Bequests (B. Amerasekera, Esq.)held, on the first issue, that the notice signed by the Office Assist-ant satisfied the requirements of the section. He. decided the otherissues also in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendant appealed.
A. St. V. Jayewardene, for defendant, appellant.
Gamin, Acting S.-G., tor respondent.
September 15, 1913. Pereira J.—
In this case the first issue framed was whether the GovernmentAgent or the Assistant Government Agent issued a notice on thedefendant in terms of section 8 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1844. Theburden of proof on this issue was clearly on the plaintiff, and the onlyevidence on the issue is document P 1. This document is not signedeither by the Government Agent or the Assistant Government Agent.It is signed as follows:—“ W. K. H. Campbell, for G. A., S. P.”The statutory duty of issuing such a notice as the one in questionis expressly cast on the Government Agent or the Assistant Govern-ment Agent, and I doubt that the fact of such a notice being signedby an officer in the department of the Government Agent or theAssistant Government Agent, even though he has official’authorityto sign notices generally on behalf of the Government Agent or theAssistant Government Agent, is a sufficient compliance with therequirements of the Ordinance. The question involved here neednot, however, be decided. The Acting Solicitor-General has notbeen able either to show by the production of such a book or docu-ment as is referred in section 57 of the Evidence Ordinance orotherwise that. Mr. Campbell had official authority to sign noticesgenerally on behalf of the Government Agent- or Assistant Govern-ment Agent, or to refer me to any evidence in the case to the effectthat Mr. Campbell had the authority of the Government Agentor the Assistant Government Agent to sign for him the particularnotice in question in this case.
I set aside the judgment appealed from, and dismiss the plaintiff’sclaim with cost6.
Set aside.