CA held a land acquired from co-owners entitled Rs.27.5mn as compensation

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda
The Court of Appeal has ordered to set aside a decision made by the Divisional Secretary of Hanguranketha to award a sum of Rs.14 million as compensation for a land acquired from the co-owners of Joansland Estate, in the Nuwara Eliya district and held these co-owners are entitled to a sum of Rs.27.58 million as compensation for the entire acquisition.

In a Board of Review application before the Court of Appeal, five appellants were seeking to set aside the order of the Divisional Secretary of Hanguranketha, dated 22.09.2009, regarding the amount of compensation for a land acquired from the appellants in terms of Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act, No. 9 of 1950.

By an order dated 22.09.2009, the Divisional Secretary of Hanguranketha has concluded that the appellants should be entitled to a sum of Rs.14 million, which is the state valuation, as compensation for the land acquired from them. 

The appellants are the co-owners of the land known and identified as Joansland Estate. A portion of that land in extent of approximately 92 acres, which is the subject matter of the action, has been acquired to build houses for the people of the area, who lost their houses due to landslides. Joansland Estate is situated in the Poramadulla village, in the Nuwara 
Eliya district.

The claim of the appellants before the Divisional Secretary of Hanguranketha for the acquisition was Rs.736 million (at the rate of Rs.50,000 per perch). Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the respondent, the appellants filed an appeal to the Land Acquisition Board of Review, seeking to enhance that amount. 

By an order dated 15.03.2019, the board has increased it up to a sum of Rs.27.58 million. Being dissatisfied with that amount, the appellants had filed this appeal before the Court of Appeal, in terms of Section 28 of the act, seeking further enhancement.

The appellants alleged that the compensation has not been done using the correct method of assessing the market value of the land, contrary to the provisions of Section 45 (1) of the act. 

The Court of Appeal two-judge-bench, comprising Justice Prasantha De Silva and Justice S.U.B. Karalliyadde, observed that the respondent Divisional Secretary has not taken up the position in the appeal that the compensation ordered by the board is excessive and the senior state counsel for the respondent has argued that the quantum of compensation ordered by the board is fair and reasonable.

“Since the respondent does not dispute the quantum of the compensation ordered by the board, I affirm the order of the board and hold that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.27.58 million as compensation for the entire acquisition,” Justice Karalliyadde held.

Counsel Murshid Maharoof with Sabrina Ahamed appeared for the appellants. Senior State Counsel M. Jayasinghe appeared for the respondent.