Mr. Ranjan Wijeratne who was the Chairman of the Land ReformCommission had filed such an affidavit which has been proved to befalse and fraudulent. This Court holds that the aforesaid fraud wouldvitiate all the acts and steps done and taken by Mr. Ranjan Wijeratnein terms of section 5 of State Lands (Recovery of Possession) ActNo. 7 of 1979 as amended. This Court is of the considered view thatthe aforesaid fraud would vitiate the petition and affidavit marked asX3 filed by Mr. Wijeratne and all subsequent acts done in pursuanceof the said fraudulent petition and affidavit. A Court of law is the onlybastion and forum to which a humble and innocent litigant could resortto obtain redress against tyrannical officialdom of this nature which isactuated by improper motives generated by persons having at theirdisposal political influence.
It is crystal clear that the mother of Ravindra Ratnayake did notmake any claim to this land on behalf of her son. The documentswhich have been marked and produced, establishes that the copiesof the letters emanating from the Land Reform Commission have beensent to Percy Perera who happens to be the father-in-law of RavindraRatnayake and who had belatedly set his eyes on getting the saidland for his son-in-law. Due to the representations made by him topersons holding high political office, the Land Reform officials havechanged their proposed course of action and are seeking to raiseissues with regard to the legality of the monthly lease which the LandReform Commission had executed in favour of the petitioner and inrespect of which lease the Land Reform Commission had collectedrents from the Petitioner. In view of the false and fraudulent aver-
merits contained in the said petition and affidavit marked X3, I setaside the petition, affidavit and report filed before the Magistrate inMagistrate's Court case No. 56976, and the statement of objectionsand the affidavit filed before this Court. I restrain the learned Magis-trate from taking any further actions or steps upon the report, petitionand the affidavit which have been filed in Case JMo: M.C. Bandarawela56976.1 uphold the legal submissions of the Petitioner which are setout in the petitioner's petition. I hold that the Petitioner was in lawfuland authorised occupation and possession of the said land as amonthly lessee of the said land under the Land Reform Commissionand in the circumstances the notice (marked 'X') issued by the secondrespondent is ultra vires the powers of the second respondent,vested in him by the aforesaid provision of said Act No. 7 of 1979 asamended. I also hold that the Petitioner was in lawful and authorisedoccupation and possession of the said land, and the aforesaid notice(marked 'X') issued by the second respondent had been issuedwithout Jurisdiction. I further hold that the said notice (marked 'X')had been issued Mala Fide, for an indirect and collateral purpose atthe instance of the said Percy Perera, who is the father-in-law ofRavindra Ratnayake. In conclusion, I hold following the Rule inWednesbury's Case that the said notice and order issued by thesecond respondent in terms of the provisions of section 3 of the StateLands (Recovery of Possession) Act. No: 7 of 1979, as amended, isgrossly unreasonable and therefore liable to be set aside by the Court,in the exercise of its supervisory Jurisdiction over administrativeorders.
I allow the application of the Petitioner with costs in a sum of Rs.1,050/- payable by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner and grantrelief to the Petitioner only as prayed for in prayer A,C,D of the petition.
I proceed to quash the aforesaid quit notice marked X1 and thepetition, affidavit and report filed by Ranjan Wijeratne in Magistrate'sCourt Bandarawela Case Number 56976 which has been marked asX3. I stay all further proceedings by the Magistrate in Magistrate'scourt Case Number 56976.
Quit Notice, petition, affidavit and report filed in M.C. BandarawelaCase No. 56976 quashed.
Application allowed.