Colombo, Sri Lanka – 28 September 2026 – The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka today dismissed an appeal in the case of Katukoliya Gamage Kalyani v. Halpandeniya Hewage Premawathie Gamage, upholding the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Provincial High Court. The landmark decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Mahinda Samayawardhena, Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna, and Sampath B. Abayakoon, brings a definitive end to a protracted dispute over land possession that originated in the Elpitiya Magistrate’s Court.
Origin of the Dispute: A Breach of Peace Concern
The case began with an information filed by the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Pitigala police station on 6th June 2012, under Section 66(1)(a) of the Primary Courts’ Procedure Act. The OIC informed the learned Magistrate of Elpitiya that a dispute concerning the possession of land had arisen between Katukoliya Gamage Kalyani (the 1st Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant, hereinafter referred to as the 1st respondent) and Halpandeniya Hewage Premawathie Gamage (the 2nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 2nd respondent), creating a likelihood of a breach of peace.
The Magistrate’s Court, after considering affidavits, counter-affidavits, and supporting documents, including a police sketch of the disputed land, determined that the 2nd respondent was in possession of the identified portion of land (marked X-1 in the sketch) at the time the dispute arose. The Magistrate also found no material to suggest the 1st respondent was forcibly evicted within two months prior to the complaint. Consequently, an order dated 27th September 2007 was issued, granting possession to the 2nd respondent, with the caveat that the order was valid only until a competent court determined the substantive dispute.
A Journey Through the Appellate System
Dissatisfied with the Magistrate’s order, the 1st respondent filed a revision application before the Provincial High Court of Southern Province holden in Balapitiya. The High Court, in its judgment dated 16th December 2008, affirmed the Magistrate’s findings, concluding that the 1st respondent had failed to establish “exceptional circumstances” for the High Court to interfere. The subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal also met the same fate, with the Court of Appeal pronouncing its judgment on 15th March 2019, dismissing the appeal and reaffirming the lower court’s decisions.
Supreme Court Deliberation: Focusing on Law and Procedure
Special leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court on 2nd October 2019, based on four key questions of law. These questions primarily revolved around the evaluation of evidence by the Court of Appeal, the identification of the disputed land, the relevance of title deeds in a possession dispute, and the strict application of “exceptional circumstances” for revisionary jurisdiction when no direct right of appeal exists.
Clarity on Land Possession vs. Title
Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon, writing for the Supreme Court, addressed the first three questions collectively, reaffirming the established legal principle that in applications under Section 66 of the Primary Courts’ Procedure Act, the Magistrate’s duty is to determine actual possession to prevent a breach of peace, not to adjudicate on title. Citing cases like Ramalingam Vs. Thangaraja (1982) 2 SLR 693 and Velupillai and Others Vs. Sivanathan (1993) 1 SLR 123, the Court emphasized that “the scope of inquiry under this special jurisdiction is of a purely preventive and provisional nature pending the final adjudication of the rights of the parties in a civil Court.”
The Supreme Court found that the Magistrate correctly identified the disputed land through the police sketch and the evidence of actual possession. It was noted that the 1st respondent’s initial complaint to the police on 14th May 2007, contradicted her later affidavit regarding continuous possession, stating, “එම ඉඩමේ නිවසක් තිබුනත් එහි කවුරුවත් දැනට පදිංචි මවලා නැහැ. අපි එම ඉඩමේ මත් පැල ඉන්දලා තිමෙනවා. මත් පැල තිබුනාට අපි ඒ වත්මත් මත් දළු මනලන්මන් නැහැ.” (Even though there is a house on that land, no one currently resides there. We have planted tea bushes on the land. Even though there are tea bushes, we haven’t plucked any tea leaves from them.) The Court concluded that the Court of Appeal was correct in rejecting the 1st respondent’s version of possession and that the consideration of title deeds for land identification was ultimately unnecessary given the Magistrate’s clear findings on actual possession.
Strict Interpretation of Revisionary Powers
Regarding the fourth question of law, which questioned the strict requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for revision when no statutory right of appeal is available, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that revisionary jurisdiction remains an extraordinary discretionary power. Citing numerous precedents including Caderamanpulle Vs. Ceylon Paper Stacks Ltd. (2001) 3 SLR 112 and Vanik Incorporation Ltd. Vs. Jayasekara (1997) 2 SLR 365, the Court reiterated that “The existence of exceptional circumstances is a pre-condition for the exercise of powers of Revision.” It affirmed that even in the absence of an appellate right, a party seeking revision must establish a compelling case of a positive miscarriage of justice or a violation of fundamental procedural rules.
The Court found no such circumstances in the present case, concluding that the High Court and Court of Appeal were correct in their determination.
The Final Verdict
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of merit, affirming the judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Southern Province dated 16th December 2008, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 15th March 2019. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
This judgment by the Sri Lanka Supreme Court underscores the foundational principles of the Primary Courts’ Procedure Act, clearly distinguishing disputes of possession from those of title, and reinforces the stringent conditions required for the exercise of the Court of Appeal’s revisionary jurisdiction, even in cases where direct appeal routes are absent. It provides crucial clarity for future land disputes falling under the purview of the Act.
Source: Read original document