Colombo, Sri Lanka – 28 August 2026 – In a significant ruling that clarifies the ambit of judicial review for provincial administrative decisions, the Sri Lanka Court of Appeal has decisively affirmed the writ jurisdiction of Provincial High Courts over orders issued by Assistant Commissioners of Agrarian Development. The judgment, delivered on 25 August 2026, overturns a High Court decision that had dismissed an application for want of jurisdiction, remitting the matter back for a hearing on its merits.
The case, titled Padma Warnalatha Thennakoon and Others v. N.A.S. Weerasinghe and Others, centered on a pivotal question of law: whether an order made by an Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development under the provisions of the Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 (as amended) is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of a High Court established under Article 154P(1) of the Constitution.
Background to the Dispute
The dispute originated with Padma Warnalatha Thennakoon and Don Joseph Michael Munaweera (the Petitioners-Appellants) lodging a complaint with the Agrarian Development Officer of Kegalle. They alleged that the 4th and 5th Respondents had unlawfully cut down a water channel, essential for irrigating the Petitioners’ paddy field, and diverted it to their own land. Following an inquiry under Section 83 of the Agrarian Development Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development, Kegalle, dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioners sought remedies in the nature of writs of certiorari (to quash the Assistant Commissioner’s order) and mandamus (to restore the water channel) from the High Court of the Sabaragamuwa Province, holden at Kegalle. However, the High Court Judge dismissed their application, upholding a jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondents, who argued that the Provincial High Court lacked the authority to hear such a writ application.
The Court of Appeal’s Crucial Deliberation
The Appeal Court bench, comprising Justices D. Thotawatta and K.M.S. Dissanayake (who authored the judgment), meticulously examined the constitutional and legislative framework governing the writ jurisdiction of Provincial High Courts in Sri Lanka. The core of their analysis revolved around Article 154P(4)(b) of the Constitution, which outlines the writ powers of Provincial High Courts, and Item 9 of the Provincial Council List, which includes “Agriculture and Agrarian Services” as a subject for provincial governance.
The Court highlighted three key conditions for a Provincial High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction:
- The writ must be sought against a person exercising power within the Province.
- The power exercised must be under a law or a Provincial Council Statute.
- The law or statute must relate to a matter set out in the Provincial Council List.
Interpreting the Agrarian Development Act and Delegated Powers
A central tenet of the Court’s reasoning was a careful interpretation of Section 38 of the Agrarian Development Act. This section details the appointment and powers of the Commissioner-General of Agrarian Development and various subordinate officers. Justice Dissanayake drew a critical distinction:
- While the Commissioner-General, Additional Commissioner-General, and Commissioners exercise powers on an “island-wide” basis.
- Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners exercise the same delegated powers “only within the area” to which they are appointed (e.g., a specific district like Kegalle).
The Court unequivocally stated that Section 38(4) and (5) were deliberately enacted to further the objectives of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, thereby making decisions of Deputy and Assistant Commissioners, when exercising powers within their appointed provincial areas, “amenable” to the writ jurisdiction of the Provincial High Courts. This interpretation ensures that the requirement of the power being exercised “within the province” is met.
Furthermore, the Court affirmed that “Agriculture and Agrarian Services” clearly fall within the Provincial Council List (Item 9), and the specific matter of rehabilitating and maintaining minor irrigation works (which the water channel dispute pertains to) aligns with Item 9.2 of the same list. Thus, all three conditions for Provincial High Court jurisdiction were found to be fulfilled.
Distinguishing Precedents and Inconsistent Positions
The Court of Appeal also addressed previous Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions (e.g., Wijesuriya vs Wanigasinghe and Others, CA(PHC)65/2010, CA(PHC)122/2011) that had been relied upon by the Respondents. Justice Dissanayake distinguished these cases, noting that they had not considered the crucial distinction regarding the localized exercise of powers by Assistant and Deputy Commissioners as enacted by Section 38(4) and (5) of the Agrarian Development Act. The earlier Supreme Court case, for instance, involved a decision made directly by the Commissioner General on appeal, which falls under island-wide jurisdiction.
Notably, the judgment also highlighted an inconsistent stance taken by the Learned Attorney General in the instant appeal compared to a prior case (CA Writ Application No. 371/2014), where a similar legal question saw the Attorney General advocating for Provincial High Court jurisdiction. The Court reiterated the well-settled legal principle that a party cannot “approbate and reprobate” on the same matter, suggesting that this inconsistency further undermined the jurisdictional objection.
Verdict and Implications for Administrative Justice
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ruled that the jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondents was not entitled to succeed, either in fact or in law. Consequently, the High Court order dated 30.07.2018 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs. The High Court of the Sabaragamuwa Province was directed to hear and determine the application for writ on its merits as expeditiously as possible.
This landmark ruling by the Sri Lanka Court of Appeal reinforces the role of Provincial High Courts in ensuring administrative justice, particularly in matters related to agrarian services. It provides crucial clarity on the judicial review of decisions made by provincial-level agrarian development officials, ensuring that citizens have accessible avenues for redress against potentially unlawful administrative actions affecting their agricultural livelihoods.
Source: Read original document