051-SLLR-SLLR-2006-V-3-JEEWANANDA-AND-ANOTHER-vs.-LAND-REFORM-COMMISSION-AND-OTHERS.pdf
CA
Jaewananda and Another vs. Land Reform Commission
and Others
397
JEEWANANDA AND ANOTHERVS.LAND REFORM COMMISSION AND OTHERSCOURT OF APPEAL,
SRISKANDARAJAH, J.
CA 1708/2004.
JULY 14, 2000.
Land Reform Commission Law No. 1 of 1972 – Decision to transfer vestedland to – Ande cultivators – Advance deposited – Handing over of (Possession)terminated • No hearing given – Validity 7 – Principles of natural Justice -Legitimate expectation.
The petitioners were the ande cultivators, when the land was vested inthe 1st respondent under the Land Reform Law. A decision was made by the1st and 2nd respondents to transfer ownership of paddy lands vested in the1st respondent by sale to the ande cultivators of such land. After consideringthe applications to purchase, the petitioners were directed to deposit anadvance until the Government Valuation is received. This sum was depositedand possession was handed over. The petitioners contended that the 2nd
398
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
respondent Chairman of the LRC without any valid reason informed thepetitioners that the handing over of the possession was being terminatedand further contended that the said decision was made without giving thepetitioners a hearing, and sought to quash the said notice.
The respondents contended that, possession was handed over toconsider the sale of the lands subject to the approval of the Commissionersand Government valuation, but before the formalities were fulfilled for thetransfer the petitioners have transferred the possession of a portion of theland to 3rd parties, and hence they are not entitled to the land.
HELD:
The petitioners have a legitimate expectation that the deed of sale willbe executed after the formalities are fulfilled. The withdrawal of the possessionof the land is not due to the lack of any qualification, requirements or a policychange but due to the allegation that the petitioners had violated a conditionthat the possession should not be handed over to 3rd parties. This is anallegation where the petitioner could have explained to the satisfaction of therespondents if an opportunity was given to them.
Per Sriskandarajah, J.
‘An administrative body may in a proper case, be bound to give a personwho is affected by the decision, an opportunity of making representations.When a person has a legitimate expectation that he could purchase a propertyunder the provisions of a statute he shall be given an opportunity to presenthis case before an adverse decision is made against his expectation".
APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari.
Cases referred to:
Latiff vs. Land Reform Commission – 1984 1Sri LR118
Schmidit vs. Secretary of State for Home Affairs 1969-2 Ch. 149 at170
Ridge vs. Baldwin 1994 AC 40
Gunawardane and Wijesooriya vs. Minister of Local Government,Housing and Construction and Others 1992 Sri LR 26
A. S. M. Perera, P. C. with Buddhika Wickremasinghe for the PetitionerViraj Dayaratne S. C. for the 1st and 2nd RespondentsSaliya Pieris for the 3rd Respondent.
CA
Jeewananda and Another vs. Land Reform Commission
and Others
399
cur. adv. vull.
August, 31, 2006SRISKANDARAJAH, J.
The Petitioners are brothers and were the Ande Cultivators of ah extent oftwo roods each of one acre land called Wetakeiya Kumburasituated withinthe Grama Sevaka Division of Minnana which (Sri Skandarajah, J) Landwas vested in the 1st Respondent Commission Law No. 1 of 1972. It isadmitted by the Petitioners and the 1st and 2nd Respondents that adecision had been made by the 1 st Respondent Commission to transferownership of paddy lands vested in the 1st Respondent by sale to theAnde Cultivators of such land. Circulars issued to this effect are markedas P1 and P1 A. Accordingly the Petitioners who are entitled to purchaseabout two roods of land each respectively shown in the Plan drawn byM. Samarasekera, Licensed Surveyor and Leveller, made applications topurchase the said lands under Section 22(1 )(A) of the Land ReformCommission Law No. 1 of 1972 as amended. After consideration of theapplication and after the receipt of necessary recommendations andobservations the former Chairman of the 1 st Respondent had by his lettersNo. 15/6/53/180 dated 15.09.2003 requested the Petitioners to depositan advance of Rs. 25,000/- each until the Government valuation is received.The Petitioners deposited the said sum and on the request of the formerChairman of the 1 st Respondent (P8 and P8A), the Director, District LandReforms Authority, Ratnapura handed over the possession of the saidtwo lands to the Petitioners on 26.09.2003. The documents relating tothe handing over of the said lands are annexed as P9 and P9A.
The Petitioners contended that the 2nd Respondent without any validreason by his letter of July, 2004 (P12 and P12A) informed the Petitionersthat the handing over of the possession of the respective lands to thePetitioners was being terminated. The said decision was made withoutgiving the Petitioners a hearing therefore the said decision is in violation ofthe principles of natural justice and it is arbitrary. For these reasons thePetitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the decision made by the2nd Respondent by his letter of July, 2004 marked P12 and P12A.
The 1 st and 2nd Respondent contended that the possession of thesaid land was handed over to the Petitioners to consider the sale of thesaid lands subject to the approval of the Land Reform Commission andGovernment valuation. But before the formalities were fulfilled for the transferof the said land the 1 st and 2nd Petitioners transferred the possession ofa portion of the said lands to 3rd parties which is evident from the deedsmarked P11 and P10. By this transfer the said Petitioners have violatedthe provisions of the Land Reforms Commission Law and hence they arenot entitled to the said lands.
400
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
It is admitted that the 1st and 2nd Respondent did not call forexplanation or requested the Petitioners to show cause why the possessionof the lands which were handed over to the Petitioners were terminatedand no inquiry was held in this regard.
In Latiff vs. The Land Reform Commission (,) when allowing anapplication for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of revocation of adetermination to alienate, H. A. G. De. Silva, J. with Abeywardena, J.agreeing held:
“In deciding to revoke the determination to alienate, the respondent-commission has in P5 given as the only reason for its decision thewithdrawal of the earlier approval given by the Minister. The respondent-commission in its statement of objections avers that any recommendationmade by the Advisory Board or any approval of the Minister has no forceor effect in law. This is quite true, but, that is the only reason given in P5for the revocation of the determination to alienate. No opportunity hasbeen given to the petitioner to show cause against such a proposedrevocation. Though this is an instance of the exercise of an administrativefunction there was an obligation on the respondent-commission to actfairly.”
Lord Denning M. R. in Schmidt vs. Secretary of State for HomeAffairs(2) at 170 observed :
“The speeches in Ridge vs. Baldwin(3) show that an administrativebody may, in a proper case, be bound to give a person who is affected bytheir decision an opportunity of making representations. It all depends onwhether he has some right or interest, or I would add some legitimateexpectation of which it would not be fair to deprive him without hearingwhat he has to say.”
When a person has a legitimate expectation that he could purchasea property under the provisions of a statute he should be given anopportunity to present his case before an adverse decision is made againsthis expectation. This was the principle laid down in Gunawardena andWijesooriya vs. Minister of Local Government, Housing and Constructionand Others(4). In this case, Wadugodapitiya, J. with Deeraratne J, andGunawardana J agreeing held:
“In the instant Appeals there were in fact two applications and, itwould follow that the 2nd respondent was indeed under a duty to informthe appellants of the fact that he had taken a decision to divest. In fact,the dictates of the principles of natural justice would demand as much.
CA
Jayasundera vs Wljetilake and Others
401
The facts clearly show that the appellants did in fact have a legitimateexpectation of purchasing the premises in question and that a decisionto divest would have affected them adversely.”
In the instant case the Petitioners have a legitimate expectationthat the deed of sale will be executed after the formalities are fulfilled. Thewithdrawal of the possession of the said land is not due to the lack of anyqualification, requirements or a policy change but due to the allegationthat the Petitioners had violated a condition that the possession of theland should not be handed over to 3rd parties. This Is an allegation wherethe petitioners could have explained to the satisfaction of the 1 st and 2ndRespondent if an opportunity was given to them.
As the Petitioners were not given a hearing in this regard beforearriving at the impugned decision the 1st and 2nd Respondents haveacted in violation of the rules of natural justice. Therefore this Court issuesa writ of Certiorari to quash the decision made by the 2nd Respondentwhich is communicated by the letters dated July, 2004 marked P12 andP12A. The application of the Petitioners is allowed without costs.
Application allowed.