046-NLR-NLR-V-73-K.-A.-GUNASEKERA-Petitioner-and-T.-B.-WEERAKOON-Assistant-Government-Agent-.pdf
2G2
Gunasckcra v. Wctrakoon
1970Present: Sirimane, J., and de Kretser, J.
IC. A. GUNASEKERA, Petitioner, and T. B. WEERAKOON(Assistant Government Agent, Kurunegala), Respondent
S.G. S05/69—Applications for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus on
T.B. Weeralcoon, A.Q.A. (Acquiring Officer), Kurunegala, Respondent
Certiorari—Mandamus—jEffect of undue delay—Effect of an alternative remedy—
Compulsory acquisition of land—Valuation of the land—Procedure—Land
Acquisition Act, ss. 7 (c), 9, 63—Land Acquisition Regulations 6, 7.
The petitioner appliod for writs of certiorari and mandamus to enhance thecompensation awarded to him seven months earlier by an Acquiring Officerunder the Land Acquisition Act.
Held, that the application should be refused because (a) the petitioner wasguilty of undue delay in making the application, (6) the petitioner had analternative remedy.
Obiter : To ascertain the market value of a land an Acquiring Officor shouldnot rely solely and entirely on a report sent by an officer of the ValuationDepartment.
SIRIMAXE, J.—Gunasekcra v. Weeraloon
263
Application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus.It. L. N. de Zoysn, for the petitioner.
P. S. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
April 24, 1970. Sirimane, J.—
The petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs. 3,2S5 as compensation for anallotment of land two roods and twenty-five perches in extent which wasacquired under the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as theAct.
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, he has appealedto the Board of Review against that award.
We arc in agreement with the contention of the learned Crown Counselthat this application for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the award, and aWrit of Mandamus ordering the Acquiring Officer to hold an inquiryunder Section 9 of the Act, should be refused because—
(а)the petitioner has been guilty of undue delay,
(б)an inquiry, however imperfect has been held and the petitioner
has an alternative remedy which he has sought.
The award was made on 17.4.69, and it was more than 7 months laterthat the present application was made. We consider this period fartoo long, and there lias been no explanation for the delay.
The petitioner’s substantive claim is for an enhancement of the quantumof condensation, and it is open to him to lead such evidence in accordancewith regulations G and 7 of the Land Acquisition Regulations made underSection G3 of the Act (Sec Vol VII, Subsidiary Legislations, page 55S)before the Board of Review, in order to achieve this end.
We must add, l»owever, that the inquiry held by the Acquiring Officerunder Section 9 of the Act, is most unsatisfactory.
It is true that the petitioner had failed to comply with the provisionsof Section 7 (c) of the Act, which require him to notify' to the AcquiringOfficer in writing, the nature of his interest in the land, particulars of hisclaim for compensation, the amount of compensation, and the details ofthe computation of such amount. At the inquiry, the petitioner merelystated that he expected a sum of Rs. 12,000. But even so, we think that an
264
SIRIMAXE, J.—Gunasckcra v. TYcerakoon
Acquiring Officer with all the resources at his command, should not relysolely and entirely on a report sent by an officer of the Valuation Depart-ment, in ascertaining the market value of a land. Acquiring Officers6hould also explain to claimants (who are generally villagers ignorant ofprocedural matters), their right to challenge the Government Valuer’svaluation and lead further evidence, if they so desire, in support of theirclaims. Xone of these things had been done by the Acquiring Officer atthe inquiry in the present case.
The application is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs.de Kbetser, J.—I agree.
Application dismissed.