Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1993%20Vol.1-P376&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:56:08+00:00

Document:
JANUARY 21st AND 22nd, 1993.
Opportunity for raising objections - Resettlement of persons affected.
(a) of the Land Acquisition Act) until thelapseof30daysaftertheEIAismadeavailableforpublicscrutiny.
Resettlement of persons affected (nearly 2500 families) was to be given adequate consideration.
(a) A recommendation by the Minister (here the Minister was the President himself).
(iv) that such project would meet ' the just requirements of the general welfare of the People '. project.
section 4 (1) has been transferred to the Supreme Court.
it is sufficient for him to form an opinion on the available material.
material on which he could form his opinion.
effect on individuals, has to be adduced and weighed.
route or the rejection of alternative options, was unreasonable.
that cannot per se be regarded as -unduly high, particularly if satisfactory steps are taken for resettlement.
1. Hirdaramani v. Ratnavale  75 NLR 67.
2. Visuvalingam v. Liyanage  2 Sri L.R. 123.
3. Wickremabandu v. Herath  2 Sri L.R. 348.
4. Weeraratne v. Colin-Thome  2 Sri L.R. 151, 167-169.
5. Fernandopulle v. Minister of Lands and Agriculture (1978) 79(2) N.L.R. 115.
APPLICATION for writs of Certiorari and Prohibition.
R. K. W. Goonesekera with Lalanath de Silva and Manohara de Silva for petitioners.
K. C. Kamalasabaysan Deputy Solicitor-General with Miss. A. Navaratne for respondents.
carrying out an urban development project, do by this Order declare that the said lands are required for such purpose".
and 4th Respondents, but no relief has been sought against them.
consisted of a large number of Sri Lankan Government officials and other experts, (whose names were set out inthereport).
Some extracts from the report were produced in support.
recommendations. According to the extracts produced by the Respondents,theChapteron"EnvironmentalConsideration"
indicates that the above factors were not adequately considered, nor suggests that there was any significant error.
accommodation for people who will be affected.........."
the Survey Department to commence the survey..........."
of families is going to take place and NHDA to do the infrastructure work......"
- The resettlement aspect has not been covered adequately.
will identify ways of dealing with the suggestions. The EAR will not be open for public comments pending these alterations.
However, the General Manager, stated that the Consultants may proceed with their work, pending the results of the EAR."
within the period of two months stipulated by section 4(2) of the Urban Development Projects (Special Provisions) Act.
not have adequate material on which he could properly have formed an opinion.
liability of an owner to summary deprivation of possession under section 7.
(iv) that such project would meet " the just requirements of the general welfare of the People ".
the Order, are required. I need therefore to consider only the remaining elements.
(iii) the implementation of such project in any manner whatsoever.
has been made, be exercised by the Supreme Court and not by the Court of Appeal.
persons are ejected from that land within sixty days of the making of such application ".
different terms. Section 3 must therefore be interpreted, as far as possible, in a manner consistent with Article 140.If"
3.......... shall. affect the powers which the Supreme Court may otherwise lawfully exercise [under]section4(1)',i.e.
Solicitor General conceded that section 3 did not affect the jurisdiction conferred by Article 140.
Amendment), been transferred to this Court by section 4(1).
authorises the Government or any other person " to take steps " under that Act. In view of the definition of " Stateland"
or which may be disposed of by the State and lands under the control of certain specified authoritiesand it wasonlya"
competent authority " who could issue such notices and take other steps. The effect of section7(1)wastoenablea"
virtue of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or other statutes.
that basis that the validity of the section 2 Order has to be examined.
the President to form an opinion after considering every aspect of the matter.
this is a superfluity which does not vitiate the Order.
opinion could have been formed.
(d) to have regard to the large number of people affected and the need for their relocation.
The " People " referred to in section 2 includes not only such " People " as may beaffectedbytheproject,butthe"
local situation, and the effect on individuals, has to be adduced and weighed.
held in Fernandopulle v. Minister of Lands and Agriculture (5).
because we consider that some other decision would have been betterwe can interfere only if it is unreasonable.
route, or the rejection of the alternative options, was unreasonable.
some other route would be better for any reason whatsoever.
introduced by amending Act No. 56 of 1988. Section 23AA requires that approval be obtained for the implementationofall"
environmental cost-benefit analysis is required only if such an analysis has in fact been prepared.
implementation of a project until an EIA is submitted and approval obtained.
new projects " for the purpose of evaluation of the beneficial and adverse impacts of such proposals ontheenvironment".
I must emphasise that the documents produced indicate that some considerationhasalreadybeengiventothesematters.
EIA is made available for public scrutiny. The section 2 Order cannot therefore be impugned on this ground.
public interest, and for that reason I make no order for costs.
GOONAWARDENA, J. - I agree.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.