The case filed by four residents from “34 Watta” in Wanathamulla (CA Writ 283/2014) against the Urban Development Authority (UDA) and its officials challenging the actions of the UDA ordering them to move from their homes to an alternative location without following proper legal process, was concluded today with terms of settlement reached with the four residents by the UDA being accepted by court.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Urban Development
Senior counsel M. A. Sumanthiran with Viran Corea, Bhavani Fonseka, Luwie Ganeshathasan and Subhashini Samaraarachchi instructed by Sunil Watagala appeared for the petitioners. Arjuna Obeyesekere, Deputy Solicitor General appeared for the UDA. The case was heard before Appeal Court Judge Upaly Abeyratne.
After the case was filed, on the suggestion of the Appeal Court, the four residents and the UDA entered into discussions to arrive at a settlement. The parties agreed on a settlement, the terms of which were signed on the 2nd of October 2014. In terms of the settlement, each of the petitioners are given 2 condominium units valued at Rs. 2,000,000 from “Methsara Uyana” apartment complex. The parties agreed to pay for each such condominium unit a monthly instalment of Rs. 2777.00 (i.e. an aggregate of Rs. 5554.00) over a period of 30 years. In addition, the petitioners amicably agreed to make payment of Rs. 50000 per condominium to the Condominium Management Authority in six equal consecutive monthly instalments of Rs. 8333.00 each.
When the case was taken up today (10th of October 2014), court was informed that the petitioners had indicated that they were agreeable to withdraw their case, subject to the terms of settlement dated 2nd October 2014 that were filed in court. The court accepted those terms as the basis for settlement and made order that accordingly, the case is pro forma dismissed (dismissed as a matter of form and not because the case lacked merit) without costs.
Paul / October 10, 2014
The picture says it all. What’s the point in settling for two houses if you always have to look over your shoulder?
/
Upul / October 10, 2014
It is a suitable ending as long as no one was pushed, bribed or threatened. I guess one can assume two apartments for one house is either a bribe or a compromise. Depends on who is talking!
/
Backlash / October 10, 2014
What kind of justice is this? Hundreds of people have lost their houses to the cruel machinations of the UDA but only 4 are given relief. Is it because the four had the resources to legally challenge the UDA.
Well done, Counsel Sumanthiran. You fight for justice to the Tamils – and the Sinhalese. The perpetrators, however, are the same.
Backlash
/
lex / October 10, 2014
Ravi, a very incisive article
/
Fathima Fukushima / October 11, 2014
Well done Kothapaya.
This is why people love him (I mean Sri Lankans love him. South Indians in SL hate him.)
/
BBS Rep / October 14, 2014
‘Methsara Uyana’is stacked with people who are aligned to the Rajapaksas’ especially those who carried out unsavoury tasks. I wonder if living among the nefarious characters is a blessing or a punishment. I will not be surprised if any of the petitioners end up being found fallen to death.
/