DAVID DE SILVA
COURT OF APPEAL.
DR. RANARAJA, J.
A. NO. 201/95
C. ANURADHAPURA CASE NO. 846/TAUGUST 28, 1995.
Land Development Ordinance -S. 170- Succession – Improvements.
Under section 170 of the Land Development Ordinance no written law other thanthis Ordinance which provides for succession to land upon an intestacy (and noother law relating to succession to land upon an intestacy) shall have anyapplication in respect of any land alienated under the Land DevelopmentOrdinance.
Since the land granted on a permit continues to be Crown land any building putup by the deceased on the land granted on the permit cannot be included in theinventory of the testamentary case.
APPLICATION for revision of the order of the District Judge of Anuradhapura.Mahinda Relapanawe with Wasantha Goonasekera for petitioner.
Nimal Muthukumarana for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 28, 1995DR. RANARAJA J.
This is an application in revision from the order of the learnedDistrict Judge dated 20/2/95. By that order learned District Judgedirected that the building constructed on the land, on a permit issuedunder the provisions of the Land Development Ordinance to thedeceased, should be included in the inventory filed in thetestamentary action.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 170of the Land Development Ordinance no written law (other than this
Ordinance) which provides for succession to land upon an intestacyand no- other law relating to succession to land upon an intestacyshall have any application in respect of any land alienated under theLand Development Ordinance.
, It is conceded that the deceased died intestate leaving his widowand his brother and two sisters as heirs. The petitioner in this case,who originally sought letters of administration, moved to have thebuilding and the land included in the inventory. Learned DistrictJudge after inquiry excluded the land given on the permit but heldthat the building should be included in the inventory.
Learned counsel drew the attention of Court to the conditions-under which the permit under the Land Development Ordinance isissued wherein it is stated that the Crown land granted on a permitcannot be fragmented.
It is also to be noted that one of the conditions in the permit is thatin the event of the permit being cancelled for breach of any otherconditions the permit holder shall not be entitled to compensation. Iam of the view that since the land granted on a permit continues tobe Crown land any building put up by the deceased on the landgranted on the permit cannot be included in the inventory of thetestamentary case. Accordingly I set aside the order of the learnedDistrict Judge dated 22.9.95 in respect of the building and direct thatthe said building should be excluded from the inventory filed in thecase. The application is allowed without costs.
DHARMALATHA v. DAVID DE SILVA