Dhammika Ganepola, J.

In the instant application, the Petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent, Land Reform Commission, to sell a portion of land along with the Tea Factory situated therein in the New Valley Division of the ‘Wanaraja Estate’, alleging that the said decision is ultra vires, arbitrary and bad in law. When this matter was taken for support, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners made submissions in support of the application. The learned President’s Counsel for the 1st Respondents and the learned SSC for the 4th to 7th Respondents made submissions opposing the application.

The original owner of the land called ‘Wanaraja Estate’, which includes the ‘New Valley Division’, was owned by the Land Reform Commission, which was vested with the 1st Petitioner, Janatha Estate Development Board, by the Order made under Section 27A of the Land Reform Law, published in the Government Gazette No. 150/12 dated 24.07.1981 marked P2 upon which the 1st Petitioner became the owner of the said land.

The functions of the 1st Petitioner had duly handed over to the 2nd Petitioner, Bogawantalawa Tea Estate PLC, which had been established under the Conversion of Public Corporations or Government Owned Business Undertakings into Public Companies Act No.23 of 1987, in terms of the Gazette Extraordinary No. 720/2 dated 22.06.1992 marked P4. Subsequently, the possession and the management of the said property had been handed over to the 1st Petitioner, and consequently, the 1st and the 2nd Petitioners had entered into an indenture of lease bearing No. 178 dated 18.01.1994 marked P6.

The Petitioners state that the 2nd Petitioner had permitted the 4th Respondent, Vocational Training Authority, to carry out a Vocational Training Centre on the 1st floor of the old tea factory, which is situated in the ‘New Valley Division’, temporarily without any payment being charged.

While the matters had remained as such, the Director of the 4th Respondent had informed the 2nd Petitioner that the 1st Respondent had agreed to transfer the ownership of A:0 R:3 P:31 land in extent, which is situated in the Glencairn Division of Wanaraja Estate, by its letter dated 21.06.2018 marked P20 to the 4th Respondent, Vocational Training Authority. The Petitioners claim that such a decision of the 1st Respondent Commission to dispose of the above portion of land is illegal, unless the 1st Respondent takes steps to revoke its previous vesting Order published in the Gazette No.150/12 marked P2 by virtue of the powers vested with the Minister under Subsection 27A(4) of the Land Reform Law.

Section 27A (2) of the Land Reform Law, stipulates that once an Order is made under Section 27(A)(1) of the Law, such an Order shall have the effect of vesting in such State Corporation specified in the Order such right, title and interest to the agricultural land or estate land or portion thereof described in that Order, as was held by the Commission on the day immediately preceding the date on which the Order takes effect.

Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the 1st Respondent has no right, title or interest to alienate the land in issue, which is vested in them. It is submitted that the only process that can permit the 1st Respondent to override a vesting order made under the above Section 27A (1) is outlined in Section 27A (4) of the Land Reform Law, that is through the issuance of a subsequent Gazette Order revoking the vesting order in the event of a breach of any term or condition related to the consideration of the vesting order made under Section 27A (1). Section 27A (4) stipulates as follows:

                   “27A(4). Where any term or condition relating to consideration for the vesting of any agricultural land or estate land or portion thereof in any such State Corporation by an Order under subsection (1) is not complied with, the Minister may by Order published in the Gazette, revoke the Order under subsection (1) relating 'to that land and thereupon that land shall revert in the Commission.”

In the instant application, no materials have been placed before this Court to the effect that such an order had been made under Section 27A(4) to revoke the Order in issue. Further, it is observed that no terms or conditions had been specified as regards the consideration in the Order made under Section 27A(1) published in the Gazette P2 by which the 1st Respondent had vested the land in issue, with the 1st Petitioner. Therefore, it appears that the right, title and interest to the land in issue had been vested with the 1st Petitioner as specified in Section 27A(2) of the Land Reform Law, and the 1st Respondent ceases to have any right or interest in the land in subject and is functus in relation to the land in subject.

Despite such, the 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents state that the 1st Respondent Commission has agreed and has taken the decision to alienate the land in issue to the 4th Respondent under Section 22(1) (bb) of the Land Reform Law which stipulates that any agricultural land vested in the Commission under this Law may be used for alienation, by way of sale or lease with the approval of the Minister, for non-agricultural purposes. Further, it is claimed that the 4th Respondent has already made an initial payment of Rs. 9.28 million to the 1st Respondent to purchase the land in issue. (see the documents marked 4R5 and 4R9). However, it appears that, since the 1st Respondent has no right or interest in the land in issue, the 1st Respondent is not authorized to alienate or sell the land in issue, which is not vested with the 1st Respondent under Section 22(1) (bb) of the Land Reform Law.

In the above circumstances, I arrive at the conclusion that the Petitioners have satisfied an arguable case or prima facie case, which warrants this Court to issue formal notices. Therefore, the Court is inclined to issue formal notices on the Respondents.

It is also observed that the Respondents have taken several objections, such as inordinate delay and failure to properly identify the land in issue. It is my view that such objections could be considered at the stage of hearing after allowing them to file their respective Statements of Objections.

The Petitioners submit that this application would be rendered nugatory unless this Court issues an interim order as prayed for in the Petition. Having considered the given circumstances and the submissions made in this application, the Court directs the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents not to take any further steps to alienate the land in question until the date of the argument of this application.

Adithya Patabendige, J.

I agree.