SC rules land powers are vested in govt.

, not PCs 2002 August Court of Appeal order set aside

by Chitra Weerarathne-September 26, 2013 The Supreme Court yesterday, ruled that land powers were vested in the government and not in the Provincial Councils. In its judgment, the Court explained that the Provincial Councils would have legislative competence to make statutes to administer state lands only if those lands were made available to the Provincial Councils by the government. It added that the Presidents powers to make grants remained unfettered. A three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Mohan Pieris PC, Justice K. Sripavan and Justice Eva Wanasundera, said that the Court of Appeal had erred in holding that the Provincial High Court of Kandy had jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Certiorari in respect of a quit notice issued under the State Lands Recovery of Possession Act. The order made by the Court of Appeal dated August 18, 2002 was set aside and the order of the Provincial High Court of Kandy dated Oct. 25, 2000 was affirmed. Chief Justice Mohan Pieris, in his judgment, explained that the irresistible conclusion was that the Provincial Council subject matter in relation to State lands would only mean that the Provincial Councils would have legislative competence to make statutes only to administer control and to utilise state land, if such state land was made available to the Provincial Councils by the government for a Provincial Council. When a National Land Commission was in place, the guidelines formulated by such a commission would govern the power of Provincial Councils over the subject matter as interpreted in the judgment in relation to state land. Justice K. Sripavan, in a similar judgement, explained that even if the government made available state land to a Provincial Council, the title to the land was vested with the state. In such a situation, one had to consider whether the recovery of possession of state land is a provincial subject. The jurisdiction conferred on the Provincial High Court with regard to the issue of Writs, is contained in Article 154 P-46. According to the aforesaid Article, a Provincial Council shall have the jurisdiction to issue, according to law, order in the nature of Certiorari Prohibition Procedendo, mandamus and quo warrant, against any person exercising, within the province,

any power, under any law or any statute made by the province established for that province, in respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Council List. Justice Eva Wanasundera, in a similar judgment, explained that the devolution of state lands to the provinces was undoubtedly subjected to the state land continuing to be vested in the republic. There was no doubt that the Presidents power to make grants and dispositions according to existing law remained unfettered. The interpretation to be given to all the provisions governing that matter was the exercise of existing rights of ownership of state land was unaffected but, it restricted to the limits of power given to the Provincial Councils which must be exercised having regard to national policy to be formulated by the National Land Commission. In this case the respondent petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, whereby, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the Provincial High Court of Kandy dated Oct. 25, 2000. The petitioners in the Supreme Court are the Superintendant of Stafford Estate, Ragala, Halgran-Oya and two others. The respondent in the Supreme Court was the Ministry of Plantation Industries as well as the Attorney General. Manoharan de Silva PC, Palitha Gamage, M. A. Sumanthiran and Ganesharajah were among the Counsel who appeared for the petitioner in the Supreme Court. Yuanjum Wijayatillake Solicitor General, PC, appeared for the Attorney General. Attorneys-at-law Gomin Dayasri, Palitha Gamage, Manori Jinadasa, Anura Jayasinghe and Rakitha Abeygunawardena appeared for the Competent Authority of the Plantations Ministry.