Karolis v. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services
1963Present: Abeyesundere, J.H. R. KAROLIS and another, Petitioners, and ASSISTANT COMMIS-SIONER OF AGRARIAN SERVICES, RespondentS. C. 96 of 1963—Application for Revision in M. C. Hambantota, 40,353
Paddy land—Eviction therefrom—Procedure—Form of summons—Paddy LandsAct, No. 1 of 1958, s. 21 (1) (2) (3).
Tbe failure of a person to appear in Court upon service of a summonswhich is not in conformity with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 21of the Paddy Lands Act cannot be the basis of an order of eviction undersub-section (3).
ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Karolia v. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services 161
Application to revise an order of the Magistrate’s Court,Hambantota.
A. O. de Silva, for the Respondents-Petitioners.
A. A. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the Petitioner-Respondent.
April 9, 1963. AbeyksundEre, J.—
The petitioners pray that this Court, by way of revision, be pleasedto set aside the order made by the learned Magistrate of Hambantota,under sub-section (3) of section 21 of the Paddy Lands Act, No. 1of 1958, directing them to be evicted from a paddy land called“ Katukumbura ” situated in the Hambantota District.
The order under that sub-section has been made on the basis thatsummons under sub-section (2) of the said Section 21 had been servedon the petitioners and that they had failed to appear on. the date specifiedin the summons. The petitioners averred in their affidavit that thesummons had been served not on them but on some other persons residingin their houses on the 29th and 30th January 1963. The ProcessServer has averred in his affidavit that the summons was served on thepetitioners. I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of the ProcessServer that summons had been served on the petitioners. The summonsin this case is, however, not in accordance with paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of the said Section 21. According to that paragraph thesummons should require the person named therein to appear and showcause, on a date specified in the summons, why he should not be evictedfrom the paddy lands specified therein. The summons in this casestated that the person summoned had failed to deliver possession ofthe paddy land called “ Katukumbuxa ” to K. D. Karolis of Mirijja-wala, and that he has thereby “ committed an offence punishable underSection 21 of the P. L. A.”, and required him to appear in person with hiswitnesses on 1.2.1963 at 9 o’clock in the forenoon, at the Magistrate’sCourt of Hambantota to answer to the said complaint, and to be furtherdealt with according to law. The petitioners were, therefore, notsummoned to appear and show cause why they should not be evicted fromthe paddy land called “ Katukumbura ”.
therefore, hold that the summons in this case is not according tolaw. I set aside the order of eviction made by the learned Magistrateunder sub-section (3) of the said Section 21 and order that the applicationof the Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services, Hambantota,made on the 17tb December 1962, under sub-section (1) of the saidSection 21 be dealt with de novo in accordance with the provisions ofthat Section.
Order set aside.
H.R. KAROLIS and another, Petitioners, and ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF AGRARIAN SE