METHODIST TRUST ASSOCIATION vs. MINISTER OF HINDU RESOURCES AND OTHERS

013-SLLR-SLLR-2006-V-3-METHODIST-TRUST-ASSOCIATION-vs.-MINISTER-OF-HINDU-RESOURCES-AND-OTHERS.pdf


CA
Methodist Trust Association vs.
Minister of Hindu Resources and Others
85
METHODIST TRUST ASSOCIATIONVS.MINISTER OF HINDU RESOURCES AND OTHERSCOURT OF APPEALSRISKANDARAJAH. J,
CA 2250/03,
AUGUST 29, 2006.
Writ of Certiorari – Associated Schools and Training Colleges (SpecialProvisions) Act, No. 5 of 1960-To divest premises vested under AssociatedSchools Training Colleges (Supplementary Provisions) Act No.8 of 1961-section 4, section 10 (1), section 10 (1) (a) – Vested school destroyed -Premises required for another school-Permissibility?
The petitioner was the owner of the premises in which C/Maradana(Methodist Mission) Tamil Maha Vidyalaya, Colombo was conducted. Thesaid school premises were vested in the Crown in 1963, under section 4of the Associated Schools and Training Colleges (SupplementaryProvisions) Act. During the communal riots of 1983, the school buildingwas burnt down. Subsequently the school ceased to function. Thepetitioner contended that as the specified purpose for which the said landwas vested in 1961, ceased to exist, the premises should be divested, interms of sectionlO (1). The respondents contended that, although theschool building was burnt down, the said property is proposed to be givento expand the school facilities of Ashoka Junior School situated in theadjoining land.
HELD:
(1) SectionlO (1) states, ‘if such property ceased to be used or is notneeded for the purpose of a school conducted and maintained bythe Director for on behalf of the Crown…." The Section provides for‘a’ school and not ‘the’ school.
is used in legislative drafting as the indefinite article, often it isused as part of the statement of the universal description, the word‘the’ is used in the definite article.
86
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2C06) 3 Sri L. R
(2) As the premises is needed for a school and it is proposed to begiven to Ashoka Junior School – the 1st respondent has no duty todivest the premises and the petitioner has no corresponding right toseek a divesting order.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari.
Case referred to
A. C. M. Raashid vs. Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Lands and Two
Others – SC 25/2003, CA 1032/2001 – SCM 20.01.2004
W. A. Sumanthiran for petitioner
Anusha Navaratne DSG for respondent.
Cur.adv.vult.
November 20,2006.
SRISKANDARAJAH, J.The Petitioner, The Methodist Trust Association of Ceylon is a bodycorporate and incorporated by the Methodist Trust Association of CeylonOrdinance No. 54 of 1935 as amended. In furtherance of its objectsthe Petitioner has acquired purchased, taken and held inter alia severalimmovable properties in Sri Lanka for and on behalf of he MethodistChurch of Sri Lanka. Properties of the Methodist Church of Sri Lanka,then known as the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Trust Associationwere subsequently transferred to the Petitioner, to be held in trust forthe Methodist Church of Sri Lanka after the incorporation of thePetitioner. The Petitioner was the owner of the premises, in which ClMaradana (Methodist Mission) Tamil Mixed School, Stafford Place,Colombo 10 was conducted and maintained as at 21 st July 1960 andcontained in extent of about 12 perches. The said premises was vestedin the crown with effect from 1 st May 1963, by vesting order No.2498,contained in Page 709 of the Ceylon Government Gazette bearingNo. 13594 dated 6th April 1963. The said Vesting Order was made bythe Minister of Education of the time, under Section 4 of the AssistedSchools and Training Colleges (Supplementary Provisions) Act No.08of 1961(P2). In the communal riots of 1983, the school building wasburnt down.
CA
Methodist Trust Association vs.
Minister of Hindu Resources and Others (Sriskandarajah, J.)
87
Subsequently the student ship of the said school drastically reduced,and the said Tamil Mixed School ceased to function, with the remainingstudents being transferred to other schools in the area.
The Petitioner contended that in the aforesaid circumstances, thespecific purpose for which the said land was vested in the State underSection 4 of the Assisted Schools and Training Colleges(Supplementary Provisions) Act No.08 of 1961 ceased to exist. Hencethe President of the Methodist Church of Sri Lanka, for which institutionthe Petitioner held the said premises in trust prior and up to its vestingby Vesting Order marked P2, wrote to the 2nd Respondent Secretary,Ministry of Education with copy to the Regional Director of Education,Colombo South and brought to his notice that the said property is notbeing made use of now for the purpose for which it was vested andtherefore requested him to have this property divested and restored tothe Methodist Church in terms of Section 10(1) (a) of the said Act.This section provides as follows
Section 10(1). Notwithstanding that any property used for the purposeof any school to which this Act applies has vested in the Crown byvirtue of a Vesting Order, the Minister, by subsequent Order publishedin the Gazette (in this Act referred to as a "Divesting Order”)
shall, if such property ceased to be used, or not neededfor the purpose of a school conducted and maintained bythe Director for and on behalf of the Crown, revoke thatVesting Order in so far as it relates to such property witheffect from the date on which such property so ceased tobe used or was not so needed; or
…
…
The Petitioner further contended that the said premises constitutingthe subject matter of this application is required for its welfare activities,and that the refusal, failure and/or neglect of the 1st Respondent to
88
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L.R.
divest the said premises has caused serious harm, difficulty, hindranceand prejudice to the Petitioner and the Methodist Church of Sri Lanka.
The 4th Respondent the Urban Development Authority is not claimingany legal right on the said premises. The 1st, 2nd and the 3rdRespondents contended that the property which is the subject matterof this application was initially used for the purpose of a school andwas vested for the purpose of being used for a school. Even after thebuilding of the said school was burnt down in 1983, the State held onto the property to be used for the purpose of a school. The said propertyis proposed to be given over to expand the school facilities of AshokaJunior School which is situated in the adjoining land to the said Property.The delay in making use of the said Land is due to a claim by the 4thRespondent and now the 4th Respondent on advice is not claiming thesaid land.
The said land is vested under the Assisted Schools and TrainingColleges (Supplementary Provisions) Act No. 8 of 1961 and thePetitioner is also claiming a divesting order under the same Act. Thepreamble of the said Act states “An Act to provide for vesting in theCrown, without compensation, the property of Assisted schools of whichthe Director of Education is or becomes the Manager under the AssistedSchools and Training Colleges (Special Provisions) Act, No.5 of 1960.”It is an admitted fact that the said property by a vesting order underthe said Act vested with the State as the Director of Education becamethe Manager of C/Maradana (Methodist Mission) Tamil Mixed Schoolsituated in the said premises, it is also admitted that the said Schoolbuilding was burned down in the communal riots of 1983 and the saidTamil Mixed School ceased to function. The 1st to 3rd Respondentsubmitted that the said land is proposed to be given for the AsokaJunior School which is coming under the administration of the Directorof Education.
The question that has to be determined is when the property whichis vested by a Vesting Order under the said Act ceased to be used, ornot needed for the purpose of the school which was in existence atthe time of vesting should it be divested under Section 10(1) of the
CA
Methodist Trust Association vs.
Minister of Hindu Resources and Others (Sriskandarajah, J.)
89
said Act irrespective of whether it is needed for another school ornot ?
Section 10(1) (a) provides “Shall, if such property ceased to beused, or is not needed for the purpose of a school conducted andmaintained by the Director for and on behalf of the Crown…” ThisSection provides for “a" school and not “the" school. Legislative Draftingby V. C. R. A. C. Crabbe at page 37 states: that “a” is used in legislativedrafting as the indefinite article. Often it is used as part of the statementof the universal description. The “the” is used as the definite article.The use of “the” in legislative drafting means that “a” person or “a”thing has been already identified or referred to or mentioned. Thereference in Section 10(1)( a) “property ceased to be used, or is notneeded for the purpose of a school" is that the property is not neededfor the school that was destroyed but it was not needed for any schoolconducted and maintained by the Director for and on behalf of theCrown. But in the instant case the 1st to 3rd Respondent hasspecifically stated that the said premises is needed for a school and itis proposed to be given to Ashoka Junior School but it was delayeddue to certain claims made by the 4th Respondent. In thesecircumstances the 1st Respondent has no duty to divest the saidproperty and the petitioner has no corresponding right to seek adivesting order. The Counsel of the Petitioner in support of thisApplication submitted the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in
C. M. Raashid v Rajitha Senaratne Minister of Land and two othersf1>granting a mandamus directing the Respondent to divest the land inissue under and in terms of Section 39A of the Land Acquisition Actbut the present Application is under Section 10(1) of the AssistedSchools and Training Colleges (Supplementary Provisions) Act, No.08of 1961. The requirements in Section 39A and Section 10(1) of therelevant Acts are not similar. Therefore the said case is not applicableto this Application and for the reasons stated above I dismiss thisapplication without costs.
Application dismissed.