Dicta of Supreme Court judgment on land

Nihal Sri Ameresekere in his Fundamental Rights Application on the ‘Expropriation Law’ has cited the following ‘dicta’ from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in LMSL Case SC (FR) 209/2007 on the matter of Land.

“In the Agreement to transfer P27 although the CPC is described as the Vendor, it is clear from the terms and conditions of the Agreement itself that the CPC has no title to the land. Hence the Government is brought in with an obligation to ensure the transfer of the land without any payment to JKH. The Agreement is so biased in favour of the JKH that it even includes a clause that the land should be transferred free and all associated costs should be borne by the CPC since the sale of 90% shares of LMSL to JKH was “structured” on such basis. It is significant that this “structuring” was only done in the unauthorised communication made by Jayasundera as evidenced by document Z18 and thereby an illegal obligation was cast on the Government of Sri Lanka to “ensure” the transfer of 8 Acres 2 Roods 21.44 perches of land that comes within the declared limits of the Port of Colombo free of any charge whatsoever, to JKH. The transfer has to be done within 1 year and to add insult to injury LMSL (now owned by JKH) is entitled to enforce this Agreement by an “order for specific performance”.

The alienation and disposition of the State land is a matter regulated in every step by law, and finally governed by the Constitution and cannot possibly be the subject matter of such an outrageous legal fiction as contained in the Agreement which was admittedly prepared by Jayasundera and the PERC.

JKH/LMSL pursued their ‘rights” under the Agreement P27 and the Government was compelled to seek extensions of the period of 1 year granted to “ensure” the transfer of the land. There were accordingly 4 amendments to the Agreement. Finally the then President made a Grant under the Public Seal of the Republic in respect of the land to LMSL under the State Lands Ordinance. The Grant P30 states that it is made in consideration of Rs. 1,199,362,500 paid to the Republic by LMSL. It is common ground that this statement is incorrect. In fact no money was paid by LMSL to the Government. The amount is the stave as that paid on 6.9.2002 by JKH to CPC for the purchase of shares of LMSL. Hence the grant is bad in law solely on the ground of the misstatement as to consideration. Any Grant made by the Head of State under the Public Seal of the Republic should have the sanctity of truth in its contents. In normal circumstances a false statement as to a payment to the Government could not be made since, it has to be verified by the Treasury. But regrettably, that check is not there since by now the same Jayasundera who was responsible for the creation of the fiction in favour of the JKH that there would be no additional payment in respect of the land, is now ensconced as the Secretary to the Treasury.

The validity of the Grant P30 has also to be examined in the light of the provisions of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution certified on 14.11.1987 provided for the establishment of Provincial Councils. Article 154 G(1) introduced by the Amendment vests legislative power in respect of the matters set out in List 1 of the Ninth Schedule (the Provincial Council List) in Provincial Councils. Article 154C vests the executive power within a Province extending to the matters in List 1 in the Governor to be exercised in terms of Article 154F(1) on the advice of the Board of Ministers. In terms of Article 154(F)(6) the Board of Ministers is collectively responsible and answerable to the Provincial Council. Thus it is seen that the 13th Amendment provides for the exercise of legislative and executive power within a Province in respect of matters in the Provincial Council List on a system akin to the “Westminster” model of Government. Item 18 of the Provincial Council List which relates to the subject of land reads as follows:

“Land – Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenure, transfer and alienation of land, land use, land settlement and land improvement, to the extent set out in Appendix II:

Appendix II referred to in item 18 reads as follows:

“Land and Land Settlement”

“State land shall continue to vest in the Republic and may be disposed of in accordance with Article 33(d) and written law governing the matter. Subject as aforesaid, land shall be a Provincial Council subject, subject to the following:-

1.State Land –

1:1State land required for the purposes of the Government in a Province, in respect of a reserved or concurrent subject may be utilised by the Government in accordance with the laws governing the matter. The Government shall consult the relevant Provincial Council with regard to the utilisation of such land in respect of such subject;

1:2Government shall make available to every Provincial Council State land within the province required by such Council for a Provincial Council subject. The Provincial Council shall administer, control and utilise such State land in accordance with the laws and statues governing the matter.

1:3Alienation or disposition of the State land within a Province to any citizen or to any organisation shall be by the President, on the advice of the relevant Provincial Council, in accordance with the laws governing the matter.”

It is seen that the power reposed in the President in terms of Article 33(d) of the Constitution read with Section 2 of the State Lands Ordinance to make grants and dispositions of State Lands is circumscribed by the provisions of “Appendix II” cited above.

“Appendix II” in my view establishes an interactive legal regime in respect of State Land within a Province. Whilst the ultimate power of alienation and of making a disposition remains with the President, the exercise of the power would be subject to the conditions in Appendix II being satisfied.

A pre-condition laid down in paragraph 1.3 is that an alienation or disposition of State land within a Province shall be done in terms of the applicable law only on the advice of the Provincial Council. The advice would be of the Board of Ministers communicated through the Governor. The Board of Ministers being responsible in this regard to the Provincial Council.