145-NLR-NLR-V-56-ASSISTANT-GOVERNMENT-AGENT-MATARA-Appellant-and-SIDDIK-et-al-Respondent.pdf
<,«. *■
PULLE J.—Assistant Government Agent, Matara t>. Sidetik ‘y STS
1954Present: Pull© J. and Swan J.ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT AGENT, MATARA, Appellant,and SIDDIK el al., Respondents
S. C. 98 (Inly.) -—D. C. Matara, 21,382
Land Acquisition Ordinance {Cap. 203)—Libel of reference—loinder of parlies—Sections 3, 5, 32.
Whore tlio Crown desires to acquire a land under the Land AcquisitionOidinanco, tho proceedings .ending with the Sling of the libel of reference uronot bod if in fact a claimant can satisfy tho Court that he owns a divided portion -8 of the land.' …
i^.PPEAL from an order of the District Court, Matara.
K.IP. P. 8. Jayauardene,"Crown Counsel, for the plaintiff appulluut.
11. W. Tambiah, for tkelst and 2nd defendants respondents,,
Our. ado. vutt.
May 10, 1954. Pnr.i.n; J,—-
This appeal arises out- of proceedings taken under the Lend'AcquisitionOrdinance (Cap. 203). Tl^-land sought to be acquired.i^describetl aslot 30 in Preliminary plan No. A1,186—S. P. Its extentjs 3%A. 0 R. 22- 5P.live claimants upponred at the enquiry boforo the. Assistant Govorninunt
1 {1915) 18 N, L, It. 168. e-
'576PULLE J.—Assistant Oovemtneni'' Ayekt, Matara v. Sutdik
——->•"•■-4|—.- *■—
Agent and, as no agreement was reacfaed^f&'theamount of compensation,a libel of reference was filed makiii^tfo'fti^}>clamiants and two others(^defendants. The 1st and 2nd de|end»B||a, among other matters,pleadod that the'llibel could not be -medn^ined owing to “ a misjoinder'Jof parties and causes of action”. Thb ltffiufiied District Judge upheldthe plea and dismissed the reference wifJi-doSfcs.'
In their statement which was Bupplemfenteo/by evidence the 1st and 2nddefendants alleged that*a.divided, part of.tho'land sought to bo acquiredof the extent of l A. 2 R. 08 P. depicted .aS lot B2 in Plan No. 483a of. 3rd October, 1930, dovolved on them and that, therefore, the libel couldnot be maintained owing to a misjoinder of parties and causes of action.
The argument which appears to have weighed with the Judge is thatwhore the Crown desires to acquire a land the proceedings onding withthe filing of tho libel arc bad, if in fact a claimant can satisfy the courtthat ho owned a divided portion of the land. In my opinion the argumentis not valid. Before tho Minister directs the Government Agent to takeorder for the acquisition of a land a decision is taken under section 3 asto whether it is likely to bo needed for a .public purpose. Thereafter •the Surveyor-General is dii-ected to examine or.cause to be examined suchland and to report whether the same is fitted for tho purposej of thoacquisition. Under paragraph (d) of section 3 it is the duty of thosurveyor to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and areport is made under section 5. It is on this report that tho GovernmentAgent is directed to take order for the acquisition. It is manifest thatnone of the duties specified in sections 3 and 6 involve the ascertainmentof tho title of one or more persons to the exclusive ownership of a dividedportion of the land. Otherwise, one Would have expected the Legislatirroto have set up a machinery for the.“iqy^s^gation of such title. Tlioundesirability of such an investigation is'obyjkjus.
Whore a land is dividedly possessed apportionment of compensationmay, as the Judge observes, become difficult; but difficulties of the samemagnitude exist no less where the land is Hot divided as, for example,in the assessment of compensation for buildings and plantations putup by co-owners or lessees or bona fide possessors.
The learned Judge relies on sectioiv.32 in justification of the orderdismissing the action. Tho proceedings taken in Court on a libel ofreference being filed are subject to the CSVfl, Procedure Code only “ sofar as the same can be made applicable >Not a single flaw in the stepstaken up to and including tho filing 'oi^thb^ibel has been pointed out.*1, am unable to appreciate how in' thesei'iircumstances the libel couldbb rejooted. No disability attaches to anything done according to thoroqtiirotaent of law.
I would set aside the order appealedrem it tho case toa the
District Court ■ for further proceedings in da^-Couiae. The 1st and 2nddefendant^ will pay to the plaintiff tfip' CW^^^kppeaj- and the costsincurred by j^im op the 2nd February,, »
Swan J.—I agpee….
Order set aside.
rnfNi-Bp at tbs oovgairthnkt^'&gss, obywin.