074-NLR-NLR-V-77-K.-G.-WIJENDRA-Appellant-and-THE-ASSISTANT-COMMISSIONER-OF-AGRARIAN-SERVICES-.pdf
372
Wijendm v. AaoiaUmi Commissioner of-Agrarian Serviette, Matale
1974Present: Perera, J., and Tittawella, J.
K.G. WIJENDRA, Appellant, and THE ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF AGRARIAN SERVICES, MATALE,
Respondent
S. C. 793/73—M.C. Matale, 39857
Paddy land—Question whether a tenant cultivator has been evicted byhis landlord—Inquiry by Commissioner—Person in occupation ofthe land—No requirement that he should be informed about theinquiry—Paddy Lands Act, ss. 4 (1A) (a), 4 (1A) (c), 4 (1A) (d)<ii), 21 (1) (2). 55.
Where a tenant cultivator of an extent of paddy land notifies theCommissioner under section 4 (1A) (a) of the Paddy Lands Act thatlie has been evicted from such extent, the Commissioner, when heproceeds to hold an inquiry to decide the question whether therehas been such eviction, is not required by any provision of theAct to provide an opportunity to the person in occupation of theland to participate at the inquiry. If the Commissioner decides thatthe tenant cultivator has been wrongly evicted and if such decision(where there has been an appeal)'is confirmed by the Board ofReview, then only does the person in occupation receive a notice tovacate the land.
i.PPEAL from an order of the Magistrate’s Court, Matale.5. K. Sangakkara, for the respondent-appellant.
T.Marapana, State Counsel, for the State.
Cur. adv. nuH.
TITTAWELLA, J.—Wijendra v. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian 373
Services, Matale
June 28, 1974. Tittawella, J.—
This is an appeal from an order made under section 21 (2) ofthe Paddy Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by theMagistrate of Matale directing the eviction of the appellant froman extent of paddy land lying in the Administrative District ofMatale. The petition of appeal states that the appellant has beenthe tenant cultivator from 1957 under the landlord one D. H.Navaratne who also is said to be the owner. It further states thatI£. G. Simon Naide and A. G. Kira the persons who participatedin the inquiry before the Assistant Commissioner of AgrarianServices, Matale (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner)as the landlord and tenant cultivator respectively had in factno such status. An affidavit from Navaratne in support of thesefacts has been annexed to the petition of appeal.
The learned Attorney for the appellant contends that theappellant, not having had an opportunity of participating at theinquiry before the Commissioner, is not bound by any consequen-tial orders or directions. He relies on the decision in the case ofPodiappu v. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services/ (73New Law Reports 225) and seeks to have the order of thelearned Magistrate set aside. For a determination of this matterit is necessary to refer to some of the relevant facts as could begathered from the record.
The Act had been brought into operation in the AdministrativeDistrict of Matale by an Order published in Gazette No. 13179 of22.6.1962. On 18.6.63 Kira claiming to be the tenant cultivatorhad notified the Commissioner under section 4 (1A) (a) of theAct that he had been evicted from this extent of paddy land.Thereupon the Commissioner had informed the landlord (SimonNaide) and after inquiry decided that Kira had been wronglyevicted. This decision was communicated in terms of section 4(1A) (c), both to the landlord Simon Naide and to the tenantcultivator Kira. Simon Naide had preferred an appeal to theBoard of Review constituted under the Act which eventuallyconfirmed the decision of the Commissioner.
The Commissioner then, acting under section 4 (1A) (d) (ii)of the Act had on 20.1.71 directed K. G. Wijendra, the appellantas the person in occupation of the extent of paddy land to vacateit on or before the 20.2.71. The appellant having failed to do so theCommissioner presented to the Magistrate of Matale on 12.6.72a. written report in terms of section 21 (1) of the Act prayingfor an order to evict the appellant and all other persons in occu-pation of the said extent paddy land. The learned Magistrate
1 73 N. L. It. 225.
374 TUTTAWELLlA, J.—Wijendra v. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian
Services, Matale
had on 13.6.72 made such an order in terms of section 21 (2) ofthe Act and gave notice of it to the appellant. This notice wasissued and re-issued on several occasions and it was finally servedon him on 13.1.73. On the same day the appellant filed thispetition of appeal.
A scrutiny of the several steps taken by the Commissionershows that the procedures prescribed in the Act have been care-fully followed at every stage. There does not appear to be anyprovision in the Act requiring the Commissioner holding aninquiry, on being notified under section 4 (1A) (a) to provide anopportunity for the person in occupation of any extent of paddyland to participate at such an inquiry. If the Commissionerdecides that the tenant cultivator had been wrongly evicted andif such decision (where there has been an appeal) is confirmed bythe Board of Review, then only does the person in occupationreceive a notice to vacate. The contention of the appellant thatthe proceedings are bad for the reason that the appellant hadno opportunity to participate in the inquiry before theCommissioner cannot therefore succeed. The authority reliedon by the learned Attorney for the appellant relates to a setof circumstances different from the present one. The Commis-sioner in that case had under section 4 (7) (b) of the Act toorder in writing, a certain person to vacate the extent of paddyland, but that notice had been issued to and served on a differentperson. In these circumstances the learned Judges held that theprocedure followed was not in accordance with the provisionsof the Act and not warranted by it. I am in respectful agreementwith that decision but it is of no avail to the appellant in thepresent case.
The learned Attorney for the Appellant also submits that theappellant and Navaratne are the tenant cultivator and the land-lord respectively of this extent of paddy land and that there isroom for collusive conduct on the part of Simon Naide and Kirain order to deprive the real landlord and the real tenantcultivator of their rights in this extent of paddy land. It mustbe remembered in this connection that under the Act a register ofpaddy lands is maintained and under section 35 it is a require-ment that the names of the landlord, the tenant cultivator andsuch other particulars should be recorded therein. Theseregisters are revised each year and the entries in the registerare prima facie evidence of the particulars contained therein.There is significantly no averment either in the petition of appealor in the affidavit annexed thereto that the names of the appellantor D. H. Navaratne appear in the relevant register of paddylands in any capacity. Furthermore the appellant who had been
Omar Katha v. Sedera
*76
noticed to vacate the extent of paddy land by the Commissioneras far back as 20.1,71 has taken no step in the matter until thefiling of the petition of appeal on 13.1.73,
The question as to who is the real tenant cultivator or thelandlord are not matters for determination in these appealproceedings (vide Rosalin Nona v. Assistant Commissioner ofAgrarian Services175 N. L. R. 443). In the absence of any materialto the contrary it must be presumed that the Commissionerwhose decision is final and conclusive had before him all tnerelevant documentary and oral evidence before coming to aconclusion. In any event the intrinsic evidence in the recorddoes not certainly point to the appellant being the tenantcultivator of this extent of paddy land as contemplated in tneAct.
In the result the appeal must be dismissed.
Pkrera, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.