Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1999%20Vol.2-P110&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:21:55+00:00

Document:
law on the face of the record - Unreasonability - Article 140 of the Constitution.
petitioner filed his application on 12.6.1998.
pending before Parliament did not constitute a bar to the grant of certiorari.
2. The application was not time barred by delay.
the provisions of sections 9 (2) and 1 8A of the SPC Law.
Commission (Paskaralingarn v. Perera (1998) 2 Sri LR 169 followed).
there was nothing to report: the Commission thereby ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
managing that landand for the retention by the petitioner of the portion of land which he had actually taken over.
decision was also made in haste and no reasons were given on some important issues.
demanded of a judicial or quasi-judicial inquiry."
were ignored and others were misconstrued.
to amount to a denial of a fair inquiry."
discretion in the matter. The impugned recommendations are arbitrary and unreasonable.
8. The findings of the 1st and 2nd respondents cannot stand and the recommendations are necessarily null and void.
1. Cooray v. Bandaranaike SC Special (Writ) No. 1/98 SC Minutes 5th February, 1999.
2. Paskaralingam v. Perera (1998) 2 Sri LR 10.
3. Bandaranaike v. Weeraratne (1981) 1 Sri LR 10.
4. Sabapathy v. Dunlop (1935) 37 NLR 113 129.
5. Senanayake v. de Silva (1972) 75 NLR 409, 432-433.
E. D. Wickremanayake with Gomin Dayasiri, J. Kulathileke and Ms. Priyanthi Gunaratne for the petitioner.
K. C. Kamalasabayson, PC, SG, with Shavindra Fernando, SSC and V. Corea, SC for the respondents.
Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry.
the findings of their inquiries and their recommendations.
" 1. Air Lanka Ltd. Purchase of Airbus Aircraft.
6. Urban Development AuthorityMajor sales and leases of property.
ten million rupees and over.
rupees and over . . .
17. Land Reform CommissionSales and leases of land.
with section 9 of the [Law] . . .
for a sum of over Rs. 2,665,000 in the open market.
been valued at Rs. 998,500 by the then Chief Valuer as the commercial value of this property.
We hold that the allegation set out in the Show Cause Notice has been established.
Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry (Amendment) Act, No. 38 of 1986.
Commissions of Inquiry (Amendment) Act No. 38 of 1986."
and on 22.6.98 this Court issued notice on the respondents.
jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 140 is unfettered (Cooray v. Bandaranayake(1)).
petitioner, and the basis of valuation, as well as the valuation, of the two lands sought to be exchanged.
allotment for such inter-family transfer (proceedings of 3.10.95, page 17, and page 11850).
The interim report does not refer to any action taken by the LRC thereafter, between February, 1981 and January, 1982.
forwarded P6B to the Chairman, NLDB.
agreed to take that extent from the northern end.
acre block would be done by the NLDB.
starting from the northern end."
soon require replanting. What the petitioner later took seems also to have been from Field No 4. (page 7440).
"So without any type of investigation your first reaction was to inform him that it cannot be released?
A: Yes, because we depend on the income of coconut to run the farm." (27.2.96, page 7352).
officials (who in turn must have handed over possession to the petitioner).
of the rest of Mawatta division as well - an indication that the Chairman was not dissatisfied with him (pages11869,12069).
The 1st and 2nd respondents did not accept his evidence.
take any action against the Assistant Manager [who had permitted the land to be fenced]."
would far outweigh the disadvantages resulting from the readjustment.
was only to see whether some minor adjustment could be made. I will refer to that matter later.
quote his own words, he ultimately 'surrendered'. In the circumstances, he had no other alternative."
Minister Thondaman was not called to give evidence.
Secretary, RID, and the Director, LRC] and the documentary evidence produced in this connection."
even been referred to in the interim report.
The 1st and 2nd respondents glossed over the defects in his evidence, attributing them to his being82yearsofage.Mr.
witness, there were serious shortcomings both in his evidence, and in its assessment, and to that I must now turn.
Research Board land more or less.
Chairman : So this is about the best land?
"Was the area that was fenced the best area in the Mawatta division or. . .?
Minister] was asked to apologize to me."
It is not surprising that the witness asserted (page 21) that he would not have been influenced by the petitioner.
"That means [the petitioner] had taken over in February?
A : I wasn't aware of this even at the meeting on the 3rd of March . . ."
". . . Q : On 10.2.82 [18.2.82] you have written to the Chairman, LRC . . . protesting . . .
[petitioner] had taken over the land.
Hon Jayasuriya: Only when he went on inspection [4.3.82] he discovered it . . . .
Q: How did you write a letter on the 10th [18th] February protesting against this?
A : The LRC people had come to this land.
Q : You were aware that possession had been taken over on 5th February, apparently, you knew at that time?
A : I cant recollect, it is a little complicating.
Q : Why did you go on the 4th of March?
A : That I can remember because the Minister asked me to go and see whether we can give some land from Mawatta.
Q : So this is the other portion that had been taken over?
Chairman : The other portion is?
Mr. Premaratne: The best portion of the land which is fenced.
March 1982, when he was directed to go there on the 4th he was surprised that [the petitioner] had already taken possession.
Hon. Jayasuriya: The two positions are inconsistent." (12.9.95 pages 25, 28-29).
"Anyway, what you say is by 10th of February, 1982, you were aware that [the petitioner] had taken some portion of the land?
A : Some portion of the land. Yes.
Q : That is what surprised you, not the fact that he had taken possession. Is that your position?
A : Yes." (12.9.95, pages 29-30).
portion of the estate had been taken over and had been fenced with sleepers, barbed wire and so on ?
(Mr Premaratne marks the letter dated 12.3.82 as P21)"
and that it had been fenced. Was the answer "Yes" a reply to all three questions, or only to the last?
"Q : To this letter to the Minister did you get a reply?
Q : What was the reaction of the Minister to that letter?
A : He did not reply that letter nor did the Secretary, but after that he would have given me verbal instructions.
Q : To fall in line?
A : I think so. I can't say something of which I am not very sure. That is what must have happened thereafter.
Q : Anyway, after your protest of the 12th of March, 1982, you ceased to protest any further?
I had after so many years" (page 7365). Nevertheless, the interim report baldly records that he testified to three meetings.
Q : In the same condition?
one of the objections . . .
Q : That is the only unsatisfactory feature about it?
Q : In other respects you have have nothing to say?
A : And there is a water course going in the centre where the cattle [go for] water." (page 7443).
Coconut Reseach Board land" (page 7537).
"Q : How do you reconcile your evidence . . . ?
have told my Minister at that time that there is no point in my visting Mawatta to select land . . .
the land to be given to [the petitioner]?
A : (Witness silent)." (pages 7541-4).
aspect of the demarcation (ie to provide a corridor to connect two portions of the land which then remained withtheNLDB).
Q : So is that correct?
A : Yes. I have written it. It should be correct." (page 7548).
even threatened to break his legs.
somehow, escaped the attention of the 1st and 2nd respondents.
the LRC. He also stated that his valuation had been approved by the Chief Valuer (page 4077).
acres of the Panikankulam land correctlyand he subsequently made a hypothetical valuation of its open market value, atRs.
"particularly to clarify this position in regard to exchanges which fall outside the ambit of the Law"and that in fact R.
was made to his evidence only in quite a different context, namely the existence of the seed paddy farm.
in determining the 1982 value of the 76 acres given to the petitioner.
was handed over to the [petitioner] by the LRC."
This amendment the 1st and 2nd respondents seem to have regarded as justification for valuationonamarketvaluebasis.
purposes in terms of the amending Act of 1981.
the fact that there was no seed paddy farm on this land during the entire period he managed this project."
"Mr. Marapana also sought to rely on the evidence of Ramanayake . . . to establish the existence of the seed paddy farm..
Gunaratne . . . "
"Hon. Jayasuriya: Q. Was the seed paddy station ever set up?
A. Yes . . .
Chairman: Q. How do you know that?
A. One of my directors : . . . Madawela was in charge of it."
no doubt about his answers, nor did they treat him as hostile.
subject clerk and he says yes.
Q : . . . You cant give a suitable answer to any of the questions asked of you without referring to the files.
A. Yes. Without any files l am unable to give evidence.
Q : Then why did you give evidence all this time?
A : It was under my . . .
say anything without a file or are you in a position to say that there was no seed paddy farm?
A : There was no seed paddy farm.
interests of justice, have directed that Madawela be called and the relevant files produced.
the Commissioners made to "settle" the dispute.
"Hon. Jayasuriya : . . . the witness is seeking to assert that there is no transfer.
Hon Jayasuriya : Without a transfer there cannot be a restrictive user?
Hon. Jayasuriya : So you return it back to get your own land?
Hon. Jayasuriya : . . . If you give this back and take that everything will end.
Mr. Marapana : I do not mind.
Hon. Jayasuriya : Are you prepared to do that?
Mr. Marapana : Of course . . .
Chairman : Why do you not consider this proposition?
Mr. Marapana : Yes, My Lord, I will certainly . . .
Hon. Jayasuriya : You have not got title yet?
Hon. Jayasuriya : If you give back and take your land everything ends. . . .
Hon. Jayasuriya : Then we need not go into this any further, Mr. Premaratne?
Mr. Premaratne : It is a matter for the Commission . . .
into this matter any further. Why do you not consider that?
Mr. Premaratne : I have no stakes hereI am only assisting the Commission . . . .
Chairman : Shall we call this on some other day so that we can consider this . . .
communicate our order to the LRC for implementation. It is very unsatisfactory".
petitioner. The "settlement" was not pursued any further, and the inquiry proceeded.
wrongful loss to [the same named institutions]".
gist of the said Notice".
surrender of one land and obtaining in exchange the other land.
proceedings - to proceed with the inquiry and/or to make findings and recommendations?
exchanges) of land belonging to the LRC?
petitioner to civic disability, with the consequence that they were precluded from proceeding any further?
"Does the non-participation of Justice F. N. D. Jayasuriya render the interim report one made without jurisdiction?"
made by the 1st and 2nd respondents. Mr. Wickremanayake, on behalf of the petitioner, relied on that decision.
that because the subject-matter of this application was before Parliament the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.Mr.
the time the application was taken up for hearing Parliament had already passed the resolution.
kind has even been alleged.
of jurisdiction, or breach of natural justice, or otherwiseit is only the judiciary which can do so.
where no resolution had been passed.
participation by the 3rd respondent.
"sales and leases of land", and nothing else.
inquired into under that limb.
Commission was into such management (etc), or into one particular transaction.
"Exchange of NLDB/LRC Land Inquiry against Mr. Wijayapala Mendis".
Parliament, or politicians - should have been included if it were an inquiry held under the first limb.
cases, it referred to "activities". Oneformof"alienation"whichtheLandReformLawcontemplatesis"exchange".
careful choice of words must be presumed to be deliberate.
exceeding the jurisdiction which the Presidential warrant had conferred.
3. Loss of jurisdiction resulting from attempted "settlement"
that they had not assessed the evidence, and therefore had not formed an opinion as to whether or not therewasmisconduct.
lawful and proper for the Commissioners to have refrained from reporting the petitioner.
the affidavits filed in this Court.
reporting because they honestly believed that the evidence didnotdisclosea"reportable"misuseorabuseofpower?
Commissioners were of the view that there was nothing to report. Nothing that transpired thereafterchangedthatposition.
the Judge in the course of discussion being misunderstood and wrong interpretations put thereon."
jurisdiction is statutorily limited. If there is a misuse or abuse of power, they cannot initiate or sanction a"settlement"
or "compound" misconduct, by refraining to report it in obedience to the Law and the Presidential Warrant.
all the more serious because they have failed to explain their conduct.
guilty on a charge materially different to that which they asked him to answer.
Minister Thondaman, but the Commission refrained from asking Minister Thondaman to explain or to testify.
would be made by the other two Commissioners, or by all three, aftertheproceedingswerereadbythe3rdrespondent.
report was due to expire on 2.2.97that on 31.1.97 it had been extended until 2.3.97and again on28.2.97until30.6.97.
demanded of a judicial or quasi - judicial inquiry.
I have already dealt with the unexplained change of front by the Commissioners in regard to the attempted "settlement".
of Ministerial approval given under that amendment.
will steadily maintain his version in the face of such questioning by the Court . . .
question a witness in the spirit of beating him down or encouraging him to give an answer . . .
attempted "settlement", as well as to the manner in which they elicited answers from witnesses.
Commissioners seem to have thought so at the time.
to amount to a denial of a fair inquiry.
I hold, therefore, that the recommendations were arbitrary and unreasonable.
ground that the interim report had not been signed by the 3rd respondent.
his costs before the Commission, and a sum of Rs. 20,000 as costs in this Court.
GUNASEKARA, J. - I agree.

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