030-SLLR-SLLR-2007-V-2-GOONATHILAKA-AND-ANOTHER-v.-THOLLAPPAN.pdf
394
Sri Lanka Law Reports
f2Q071 2 Sri L.R
GOONATHILAKA AND ANOTHERV
THOLLAPPANSUPREME COURT.
SARATH N. SILVA, CJ.
FERNANDO, J.
AMARATUNGA, J.
S.C. APPEAL NO. 19/2005, S.C. (SPL.) LA NO. 211/2004C.A. NO. 211/2004AUGUST 25, 2006
State Land (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 7 of 1979 as amended byAct No. 58 of 1981. Section 18, – What is State land in terms of Section18? – Land is taken to include buildings? – Evidence Ordinance -Section 114.— Conversion of Public Corporations or Government OwnedBusiness Undertakings into Public Companies Act No. 23 of 1987.
Bagawantaiawa Plantations Ltd., was an estate vested in the LandReform Commission and later in the Sri Lanka State PlantationsCorporation (SLPC). The respondent was an employee of the SLPC andwas permitted to occupy the land in question on the payment of a sum ofRs. 50/- per month as rent. Subsequently the estates vested in the SLPCwas leased out to companies established in terms of the Conversion ofPublic Corporations or Government Owned Business Undertakings intoPublic Companies Act. Bogawantalawa Plantations Ltd. was incorporatedin terms of the said Act, the estate within which the land occupied by therespondent is situated was leased by SLPC to BogawantalawaPlantations Ltd.
The Court of Appeal issued a writ of certiorari on the basis that therespondent had been given on rent a building and that the land is mereappurtenant to the building. The notice to quit wa$ issued by the originalrespondent-appellant as the Competent Authority for the purpose of theState Land (Recovery of Possession) Act on the basis that the respondent(V.N. Thollappan) is in unauthorized occupation of state land. The landdescribed in the schedule to the notice to quit is a portion of field 4 of theBogawantalawa Estate.
$c
Goonathtiaka and another v
Thoilappan (Sarath N. Silva, C.J.)
395
Held:
The purpose of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act asamended is to recover possession of the state lands from persons inunauthorized possession or occupation of such land. Section 18 makes itabundantly clear that land is taken to include buildings standing thereon.The specific reference in the definition that land includes any buildingstanding thereon has been ignored in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.The fact that there is a building on the land and that a person is inoccupation of that building cannot remove such land from the operation ofthe Act.
In terms of section 114 of the Evidence Ordinance a Court may presumeinter alia "that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed". Inthis case the respondent has produced the letter by which he is appointedas the Competent Authority in respect of the Sri Lanka State PlantationsCorporation. As the petitioner has not disputed that averment, no furtherproof is required in regard to the authority of the appellant to perform hisofficial functions under the Act.
APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Gomin Dayasiri with Manoii Jinadasa for petitioner.
$. Mandaleswaran with S. Shanthisan and Tharanga Aiuthge for therespondent.
Cur.adv.vult.
August 25, 2006
SARATH N. SILVA, CJ.
This is an appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Appealdated 6.7.2004. By that Judgment the Court of Appeal issued awrit of certiorari to quash the quit notice produced marked X13.The Notice was issued by the original respondent-appellant asthe Competent Authority for the purpose of the State Land(Recovery of Possession) Act, stating that the petitioner-respondent (V.V. Thoilappan) is in unauthorized occupation ofstate land described in the schedule to the Notice and requiringhim to vacate the land together with dependents, if any, on orbefore 31.12.2001. The land described in the schedule to theNotice is a portion of field No. 4 of the Bogawantalawa estateof which the boundaries are given containing an extent of 57ftx 65 ft.
396
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2007] 2 Sri L.R
It is not disputed in this case that BogawantalawaPlantations Ltd., was an estate vested in the Land ReformCommission and later in the Sri Lanka State PlantationsCorporation (SLPC). According to the documents therespondent was an employee of the SLPC and was permittedto occupy the land in question on the payment of a sum of Rs.50/- per month as rent. Subsequently the estates vested in theSLPC were leased to Companies established in terms of theConversion of Public Corporations or Government OwnedBusiness Undertakings into Public Companies Act No. 23 of1987.
Bogawantalawa Plantations Ltd., was thus incorporated byan order dated 22.6.1992 made in terms of the said Act. TheBogawantalawa estate within which the land occupied by thepetitioner is admittedly situated was leased by the SLPC toBogawantalawa Plantations Ltd., by Lease bearing No. 83dated 18.1.1994 attested by J. Kottage, Notary Public.
The lease is for a period of 99 years and contains aprovision for prior termination. Therefore the land remainsvested in the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation.
In terms of section 18 of the State Lands (Recovery ofPossession) Act, as amended by Act No. 58 of 1981, "Stateland includes …. any land vested in or owned by or under the
control of the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation".
Thus the provisions of the Act, as amended would apply inrespect of the land and premises in question.
Although the Court of Appeal also arrived at the conclusionstated above as to the application of the Act in respect of theBogawantalawa Estate, the Court of Appeal issued the writ ofcertiorari on the basis that the petitioner had been given on renta building and that the land is mere appurtenant to thebuilding. On that reasoning it was held that the provisions ofthe Act cannot be invoked to evict a person from a building. Onthat reasoning it was held that the provisions of the Act cannotbe invoked to evict a person from a building under the guise ofan eviction from land. It is specifically stated in the judgmentthat the impugned notice to quit is an abuse of the process of
sc
Goonathffaka and another v
Thollappan (Sarath N. Silva, C.J.)
397
the special law meant to evict those who are in unauthorizedand unlawful occupation of the State land.
It was further held that the respondent has not adduced anyproof of his authority to issue the impugned notice to quit as aCompetent Authority in terms of the said Act.
Counsel for the appellant contended that the Court of Appealhas misdirected itself as to the meaning to be attached to thephrase "State Land" and has failed to take into account itsdefinition as given in section 18 of the Act. The operativeportion of the definition of the phrase "State Land" in the Act, asamended by Act No. 58 of 1981 reads as follows:
“State land means land to which the State is lawfullyentitled or which may be disposed of by the State togetherwith any building standing thereon and with all rights,interests and privileges attached or appertaining
thereto…."
The latter part of this definition referred to above extends itto the SLPC.
According to the long title of the main Act, it is intended tomake provision for the "Recovery of possession of State landfrom persons in unauthorized or unlawful occupation thereof."
The purpose of the Act is therefore to recover possession ofthe state land from persons in unauthorized possession of suchland. The definition in Section 18 makes it abundantly clear thatland is taken to include buildings standing thereon. The Courtof Appeal has failed to give effect to the manifest purpose of theAct, which is the recovery of possession of land from personsin unauthorized or unlawful occupation. The fact that that thereis a building on the land and that a person is in occupation ofsuch building cannot remove such land from the operation ofthe Act.
The interpretation given by the Court of Appeal imposes intothe Act a restriction which is not warranted by its provisions.The interpretation would result in a curtailment of its provisions,wherever there is a building on such land. The specificreference in the definition that land includes any building
398
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2007] 2 Sri L.R
standing thereon has been ignored in the judgment of the Courtof Appeal. Furthermore in reference to the particular facts ofthis case it is revealed from the documents produced by therespondent himself that he was permitted to occupy an extentof 15 perches situated in the Bogawantalawa estate. Letterdated 9.4.1986 (X2) states as follows:
"This is to certify that Mr. V.N. Thol/appan, an employee ofthe Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation Board I, isresident on Bogawantalawa State Plantations. He is livingin a temporary shed of wattle and daub which is notinventorized in the plantation. This temporary shed is closeto the cemetery and has about 15 perches of vegetablegarden attached to it."
The extent described in the notice to quit is approximately15 perches and significantly one boundary is the cemeteryreferred to in document X2. If the Court of Appeal had givensufficient heed to document X2, the conclusion would not havebeen drawn that the petitioner was in occupation of a buildingwith some appurtenant land. The contrary appears to be thecorrect position where the respondent was permitted to occupyan extent of about 15 perches of land with a temporary shedthat was standing thereon.
For the reasons stated above I am of the view that the landas described in the notice to quit comes within the definition ofstate land in section 18 of the State Lands (Recovery ofPossession) Act, as amended by Act No. 58 of 1981.
The next matter to be considered is in respect of theauthority of the respondent to function as the CompetentAuthority in terms of the Act. The definition of phrase"Competent Authority" as contained in the Act as amended No.58 of 1981 includes
*(h) an officer generally or specially authorized by acorporate body, where such land is vested in or owned byor under the control of such corporate body".
The respondent produced in evidence document MR1" dated
issued by the Ministry of Plantation Industries, which
sc
Goonathitaka and another v
Thollappan (Sarath N. Silva, C.J.)
399
specifically states that the respondent is appointed asCompetent Authority for the Sri Lanka State PlantationsCorporation in respect of the State Land (Recovery ofPossession) Act No. 7 of 1979. The petitioner has not deniedthis averment in the respondent's affidavit filed in the Court ofAppeal. Therefore the Court of Appeal is clearly in error when itheld that the respondent did not adduce any proof of his.appointment as "Competent Authority."
In terms of section 114 of the Evidence Ordinance a Courtmay presume inter alia "that judicial and official acts have beenregularly performed". In this case the respondent has producedthe letter by which he is appointed as the Competent Authorityin respect of the Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation. Thepetitioner has not disputed that averment. Therefore no furtherproof is required in regard to the authority of the appellant toperform his official functions under the Act.
For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed and thejudgment of the Court of Appeal dated 6.7.2004 is set aside. Nocosts.
FERNANDO, J. – I agree.
AMARATUNGA, J.I agree.
Appeal allowed.