The Court of Appeal recently ordered that Palippody Jeyatheeswaran of Nochchimunai, Batticaloa, currently living at Lunchwisenstrasse 30, 8051 Zurich, Switzerland, be granted suitable alternative land, of equal value, in lieu of “Wembabhumi” situated at Periyanilawanai Grama Niladhari Division, in Karaiwapattu, in the Kalmunai Divisional Secretariat area, taken over in 2005 to build a housing complex for tsunami displaced.

The Petitioner moving the court in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution stated that the Kalmunai Divisional Secretariat took over the land, that was released to him in March 1990, through a permit, even without consulting him. According to the petitioner, the extent of the land, taken arbitrarily over, is 1 acre, 1rood and 20 perches.

The bench consisted of Mayadunne Corea, J and Mahen Gopallawa, J. The respondents were Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Manmunai North, Batticaloa (First respondent namely Vanniyasingam Vasuthevan succeeded by Mrs. Shivapiriya Vilvaratnam), Provincial Land Commissioner (Second respondent namely Mrs. H.D. Asinsala Seneviratne, D.M.R.C. Dasanayake and Mrs. Valarmathy Ravindran) and Land Commissioner General (Third respondent namely G.D. Keerthi Gamage, K.D. Bandula and Ranaweera Arachchilage Chandana Saman Ranaweera Arachchi).

The court issued the directive after having quashed decisions taken at a meeting called by the Secretary to the Home Affairs Ministry on July 14, 2021, to grant 20 perches to a close relative of the petitioner, nominated by the latter. This decision has been taken against the backdrop of the petitioner being a Swiss national but since then he has obtained dual citizenship.

Uditha Egalahewa, P.C., with Vishwa Vimukthi, represented the petitioner, whereas State Counsel Shemanthi Dunuwille appeared for the respondents.

The court has declared that the decision to grant 20 perches to a close relative of the petitioner is bad in law. The court held that the conduct of the first respondent, in respect of this particular case, couldn’t be justified, and respondents should address the issue according to the law. In the court ruling, the instances the first respondent disregarded instructions issued by the second respondent to grant one acre of land to the petitioner but offered 20 perches.

The petitioner’s father, who served as a Grama Seveka, had been killed by the LTTE in the East and the petitioner shot and wounded by the LTTE in Colombo in 2005 and migrated in Switzerland in September same year.

The court pointed out that in spite of many meetings and decisions taken over the years, the respondents failed to provide alternative land.

However, the court pointed out in the absence of the original permit issued to the petitioner, it is not clear whether the said permit was an annual permit that had to be renewed yearly, or a long-term permit. Therefore, the court is not in a position to determine whether the petitioner was entitled in law to an alternate land. But, in terms of documents that had been submitted to court, it appears that all the state officers, including the Land Commissioner General, had come to a conclusion and a decision was made to the effect that the Petitioner should be given an alternate land. Further, at the hearing, all Counsel conceded that the petitioner should be given an alternate land. Hence, court would not dwell on the said question.

By Shamindra Ferdinando