046-SLLR-SLLR-2006-V-3-PEIRIS-vs.-LAND-REFORM-COMMISSION.pdf
CA
Peiris Vs Land Reform Commission(Udalagama, J.)
365
PEIRISVSLAND REFORM COMMISSIONCOURT OF APPEAL,
UDALAGAMA. J.(P/CA),
CA 1722/2001,
NOVEMBER 12,2003,
DECEMBER 15, 18, 2003.
Land Reform Law No. 1 of 1972-section 24 -section 66 (iii) (d)-Landreleased to a charitable trust-Subsequent decision to reacquire-Validity?-Is a charitable trust exempted from the scope of the Land Reform Law ?
The petitioner sought to quash the decision of the respondent tore-acquire the land which was given to a charitable trust. It was contendedby the respondent that, the land was vested in the Land ReformCommission (LRC), and it was divested under Section 24 in favour of theTrust and as it had not been utilized for the purpose of the trust theCommission was compelled to re-vest the land.
HELD:
A charitable trust is exempted from the scope of the LandReform Law and in the absence of a legal right on the part ofthe L R C to divest or for that matter a power to revert an extentof land exempted from the provisions of the Land ReformLaw, the Commission had no right to repossess the property.
The land was not alienated by the LRC to the charitable trustbut in fact the land vested in the trust by the operation of lawand the land belonged the charitable trust.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari/Prohibition.
366
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
A. R. Surendran with K. V. S. Ganesharajan for petitioner.C. Witharana for 1-4 respondents.
Bimba Tilakaratne DSG for 5-7 respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
February 11,2004,
UDALAGAMA. J. (P/CA)The petitioner, a Trustee of “the Peiris Charitable First Trust" asappearing in document P1, the Trust deed, purportedly held in trustthe property morefully described in the aforesaid document P1 calledand known as Lihiriyagama Group in the district of Kurunegala.
Admittedly, the said land the subject matter of this applicationwas exempted from the provisions of section 66 (iii) (d) of the LandReform Law No. 01 of 1972. It is apparent that by document P5 dated24.11.1980 the Land Reform Commission had released an extent of141 acres of the aforesaid estate to the Peiris Charitable First Trustreferred to above.
Also admittedly in or about October 2001 vide the contents ofdocuments P10 and P11 the 6th respondent on behalf of the LandReform Commission informed the Petitioner that the former proposesto re-acquire the aforesaid Lihiriyagama group to be distributed amongthe Janawasa employees with further instructions to the Petitioner tohandover the said extent to the Director of the Land Reform Commissionof Kurunegala.
The petitioner alleging political interference and mala tidesmorefully described in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 by this applicationinter alia seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the decisioncontained in P10and P11 aforesaid and a writ in the nature of prohibitionto restrain the 1-6 respondents from implementing the aforesaidimpugned decision. A writ of prohibition is a remedy similar to Certiorari
CA
Peiris Vs Land Reform Commission
(Udalagama, J. (P/CA)
367
the only divergence being in respect of the stage of issue wherebywhile prohibition is issued before a final order Certiorari would issue inrespect of a final order.
It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondentsthat the land divested under the provisions of section 24 of the LandReform Law subject to terms had not been utilized for the purpose ofthe Trust and that the Petitioner inter alia failed to submit accounts ofthe affairs of the Trust and that the Commission was therefore compelledto revest the land in the Land Reform Commission consequent to reportssubmitted to the Commission by an investigation Board (R3 and R4).
Having heard submissions of learned Counsel and having perusedthe written submissions of parties, I am inclined to the belief thatapart from the fact that a Charitable Trust is in any event exemptedfrom the scope of the Land Reform Law and in the absence of a legalright on the part of the Land Reform Commission to divest or for thatmatter a power to revest an extent of land exempted from the provisionsof the Land Reform Law, I would hold that the Commission had no rightto repossess the property, the subject matter of this application.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondentsthat the latter had the right and the power to revest the land in termsof section 24 of the Land Reform Law in my view needs to be rejectedas the land in question was not in any event alienated by the LandReform Commission to the Peiris Charitable Trust but in fact the landvested in the latter Institution by the operation of law and the landbelonged to the Charitable First Trust. To reiterate, the land stoodreleased to the Charitable Trust by law and as stated above was outsidethe scope of the Land Reform Law.
Accordingly I would hold that the decision in P10and P11 areultra vires the provisions of the Land Reform Law.
The fact that a decision for the purported revestment occurredclose to the Presidential election specifically to satisfy an election
368
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri LR.
pledge as submitted by the petitioner appears to have credence whenconsidering the time of the issue of P10 and P11 admittedly subsequentto the Presidential election held in December 1999.
On a consideration of the submissions and pleadings beforethis court I am inclined to the view that the authors of P10 and P11clearly acted without jurisdiction and/or with an excess of jurisdiction,entitling the petitioner to the relief prayed for in the nature of Certiorari.
Accordingly this court would quash the decision contained inP10 and P 11 by a writ of Certiorari.
Application allowed.