5 June, 2020

Blog

Jaffna Tamils’ Land Grab – Appeal Court Notices Respondents To Appear On 27.08.2013 In Writ By Catholic Bishop Of Jaffna Against Grab By Rajapaksa Regime

The Appeal Court has today (19.07.2013) issued notice on the respondents in a writ petition supported on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaffna, who has also petitioned the Appeal Court to stop the grabbing of traditional Tamil lands of Tamils in the Jaffna Peninsula by acquisition. The case follows 2176 Jaffna Tamils petitioning the Appeal Court for relief. (See our earlier report)

Bishop of Jaffna,

The Colombo Telegraph learns that writ case No. CA (Writ) 205/2013 was supported today before Justice S. Sriskandaraja (President, Court of Appeal) by President’s Counsel K. Kanag-Isvaran with M. A. Sumanthiran, Viran Corea, Lakshmanan Jeyakumar and Niran Anketell. The respondents did not have themselves represented by any lawyers in court when the case was supported.

After the petition was supported, the court ruled that the respondents should be noticed to appear on 27.08.2013 and make objections (if any) to the final reliefs asked for through the case.

The forcible acquisition of an area of the Jaffna Peninsula equivalent to two-third of the entire city of Colombo has caused great heartburn, insecurity and concern among Tamils and has been condemned as a very bad blow to resolving the ethnic issue between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils.

The Colombo Telegraph is now able to reveal the contents of the petition filed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaffna which is as follows:

IN  THE  COURT OF  APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST          REPUBLIC         OF         SRI  LANKA

In the matter of an application under Article 140 of the Constitution for Mandates in the nature of Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition

Bishop of Jaffna,

Diocese of Jaffna,

Bishop’s House,

Jaffna

Petitioner

C A Writ Application No: 205/2013

Vs

1.                  A. Sivaswamy,

Land Acquiring Officer – Jaffna District

District Office,

District Secretariat,

Jaffna

2.                  Janaka Bandara Thennakoon,

Minister of Lands and Land Development,

Ministry of Land and Land Development,

Mihikatha Medura,

Rajamalwatta Avenue,

Battaramulla

3.                  Land Survey Officer – Jaffna District,

Land Surveyor’s Office – Jaffna,

Palaly Road,

Tirunelveli,

Jaffna

Respondents

On this 30th day of June 2013

TO:     HIS LORDSHIP THE PRESIDENT AND THEIR LORDSHIPS THE OTHER JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA  

The Petition of the Petitioner abovenamed appearing by  his Registered   Attorneys states as follows:-

1.                  The Petitioner is a body corporate in terms of section 2 of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Ordinance of 1906 as amended.  The Petitioner owns lands located within the area described in the notices purporting to be in respect of section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act which appeared on or about 20th  April 2013 on several trees in areas just outside the barricades on the Kankesanthurai Road at Tellipallai.

A copy/true copy of a purported notice under section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act signed by the 1st Respondent and affixed to a tree is annexed hereto marked ‘P1’ and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

2.                  The Petitioner is directly and personally affected by the said purported notice as he owns separate and individual parcels of lands situated within the area described in ‘P1’.

Copies of the Petitioner’s available title documents to the said properties are annexed hereto marked ‘P2(01)’ to ‘P2(55)’ respectively and are pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

3.               The 1st Respondent is the Land Acquiring Officer for Jaffna and is principally responsible for issuing the purported notice more fully described hereinafter, and which the Petitioner seeks to challenge through the present application. The 2nd Respondent is the Minister for Lands and Land Development, under whose direction the 1st Respondent is empowered to issue notices under section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, and who has issued the purported Orders in terms of Proviso [a] to section 38 and section 5 of such Act, which also the Petitioner seeks to challenge through the present application. The 3rd Respondent is the Land Survey Officer, Jaffna District who is empowered by the said notice to carry out certain functions.

4.                  The Petitioner states that on or about 20th  April 2013, several notices in the Tamil language alone purporting to be notices under section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act were posted in the manner and place described in paragraph 1 of this Petition.

5.                  The Petitioner states that the said purported notices were dated 27th April 2013, even though they were made several days prior to the date on the said notice!

6.                  The Petitioner states that the said notices state in Tamil, inter alia, that ‘one land in the schedule provided herein below is required for a public purpose’ and describes the area subject to the purported notice to be 6381 acres, 38.97 perches and goes on to describe the reason for the supposed land requirement as ‘Defence Battalion Headquarters [Jaffna]- Regularising handover of area on which High Security Zone [Palaly and Kankesanthurai] is established.’

7.                  The Petitioner states that the extent of the area indicated is a massive amount, constituting approximately 25.8 square kilometres. It is therefore more than two-thirds the entire land area on which Colombo City – which spans an area of 37.21 kilometres squared – is established.

A copy of a map of the Colombo area with approximately 6384 acres depicted as the extent enclosed within three marker points is annexed to this Petition marked ‘P3’ and is pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

8.                  The Petitioner states that the Petitioner owns substantial parcels of land that fall within the area specified in the purported notice ‘P1’ on which several churches were established, and which were used by the Diocese and Roman Catholic adherents within and around the area for religious worship and associated purposes. After the cessation of hostilities, those displaced from the areas inter alia specified in ‘P1’ were unlawfully and wrongfully prevented from returning to their lands, including by the erection of barbed wire fences and barricades manned by armed forces personnel. The clergy and adherents of the several churches hereinbefore alluded as well as the Petitioner were also prevented in like fashion from inhabiting the lands owned by the Petitioner and conducting their religious practices.

9.                  The Petitioner states that the state security forces have continued for many years to remain in possession of the area indicated in ‘P1’. The Petitioner states that such possession is in violation of the law.

10.              The Petitioner states that on or about 15 May 2013, he became aware that a purported Order in terms of proviso [a] to section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act [as amended] and in respect of inter alia the Petitioner’s lands had been issued by the 2nd Respondent and was gazetted in Gazette Extraordinary No. 1807/23 of 26 April 2013. The gazette indicates that the purported Order was issued on 24th April 2013.

A copy of Gazette Extraordinary No. 1807/23 of 26 April 2013 is annexed to this Petition marked ‘P4’ and is pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

11.              The Petitioner further states that on or around 21st  June 2013 he became aware that the 2nd Respondent has made a purported declaration under section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 16th  May 2012 which was gazetted on 28th  May 2013.

A copy of Gazette Extraordinary No 1812/10 of  28th  May 2013 is annexed to this Petition marked ‘P5’ and is pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

12.              The Petitioner states that those displaced from areas in the Jaffna peninsula including from areas contained in ‘P1’ yearn to return to their traditional lands and homes and entertain a legitimate expectation of being permitted to realise their right to resume and/or enjoy their links to their lands in the Northern Province. The Petitioner states that in all the relevant circumstances, any programme of action to exclude them from their traditional lands to which they have not given up the intention to return, and which they long to use and enjoy is extremely arbitrary and unreasonable.

13.              The Petitioner is advised and state that in the circumstances, the taking of steps to issue a purported notice under Section 2 and/or under Section 38 Proviso A of the Land Acquisition Act (as amended) is arbitrary and unreasonable.

14.              The Petitioner further states that where such a large extent of land (approximately 25.8 square kilometres/6381 acres) of land is intended to be acquired, resulting in mass dispossession of persons from their traditional lands with which even the distinct personal Laws recognise as central to their ethno-cultural identity requires, in order for any steps under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act to be ‘reasonable’, the following steps require to be taken:

(a)        There must be proper and adequate disclosure of the precise reason(s) for such proposed dispossession to be effected, in as much as the purported ‘reason’ set out in the impugned purported notice under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, so that precise objections thereto could be made by the Petitioner and others similarly affected;

(b)        The Petitioner and others similarly affected ought to be adequately informed of the reason as to why such a large extent of their traditional lands is sought to be acquired to the detriment of the Jaffna Tamil community’s links to their traditional lands, particularly in the context of a cessation of armed conflict in the island for many years; and

(c)        The Petitioner and others similarly affected ought to be informed of any purported reason for proposed acquisition, in a manner that would enable and permit them to state their precise objections, including implications to their personal laws, traditional rights and various aspects pertaining to their respective properties.

15.              The Petitioner states that the failure and/or refusal to properly and adequately inform him of the precise reason for the acquisition of their lands under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, has denied him the ability to make proper objections to the purported acquisition of his respective lands.

NO PUBLIC PURPOSE

16.              The Petitioner states that the purported notices ‘P1’ are unlawful in that the said notices refer to “regularising handover of area on which High Security Zone [Palaly and Kankesanthurai] is established” despite the lands within the area specified in the notice not forming part of any High Security Zone recognised by law.

17.              The Petitioner states that in any event, with the lapse of the state of emergency in 2011, all previously existing High Security Zones established by Emergency Regulations also ceased to exist.

18.              The Petitioner states, therefore, that no public purpose is served by the acquisition of any land in the Jaffna peninsula for regularising “handover of area on which High Security Zone is established,” since no such Zones ever existed or continue to exist.

INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY AND INCONSISTENCY WITH SECTION 4 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT

19.              The Petitioner states that while paragraph 1 of the purported notice ‘P1’ states that the Minister has directed that “a land” in the “area” indicated in the Schedule is necessary for a public purpose, paragraph 3 which sets out the purpose of the intended acquisition states “Defence Battalion Headquarters [Jaffna] – Regularising handover of area on which High Security Zone [Palaly and Kankesanthurai] is established.”

20.              The Petitioner states further that while paragraph 1 of the purported notice ‘P1’ states that the Minister has directed that “a land” in the “area” indicated in the Schedule is necessary for a public purpose, paragraph 2 which contains such Schedule describes the area contained in such schedule as “a land”.

21.              Thus and otherwise, paragraph 3 of ‘P1’ indicates that the entirety of the land described in the schedule would be acquired for the purposes set out therein.

22.              Thus, the Petitioner states that paragraph 1 of ‘P1’, which indicates that “a land” within the area indicated in the schedule is necessary for a public purpose, is inconsistent with paragraph 2 of ‘P1’ which identifies the entirety of the area contained in the schedule as “a land”.

23.              Further, the Petitioner states that paragraph 1 of ‘P1’ which indicates that “a land” within the area indicated in the schedule is necessary for a public purpose, is also inconsistent with paragraph 3, which indicates a purpose that by necessary implication contemplates the acquisition of the entire area referred to in paragraph 1 and 2, and not merely “a land” within such area.

24.              Thus and otherwise, the Petitioner is advised to state that ‘P1’ is self-contradictory in nature, and is therefore irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.

25.              The Petitioner states that section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act contemplates only a “particular land” within the larger area indicated in a section 2 notice being acquired. Therefore, since paragraphs 2 and 3 of ‘P1’ indicate that the entire area indicated in the said notice is to be acquired, the Petitioner is advised to state that these paragraphs – and consequently ‘P1’ in its entirety – are inconsistent with and ultra vires section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

PARAGRAPH 4 UNREASONABLE AND EVIDENCES INTENTION TO EVADE STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SECTION 4 NOTICES TO OWNERS

26.              The Petitioner states that paragraph 4 of ‘P1’ states “Person claiming ownership over the land: cannot be identified”.

27.              Without prejudice to the claim that only “a particular land” may be acquired through the process set out in the Land Acquisition Act and not an entire area within which such land is situated, the Petitioner states that there are many thousands of owners – including the Petitioner – of the numerous parcels of land situated within the approximately 6381 acres/25.8 square kilometres specified in paragraph 2 of ‘P1’.

28.              The Petitioner has repeatedly interacted with State functionaries formally and informally and is easily identifiable, being the Bishop of Jaffna and the statutorily sanctioned owner of Diocesan properties. Further, many displaced landowners have been listed by the State as “displaced” and consequently received state support while in ‘welfare camps’. The Petitioner further states that a large number of the displaced landowners consequent to their being refused permission to return to their lands yet languish in these ‘welfare camps’ established by the State.

29.              The Petitioner states therefore that it is patently unreasonable for the 1st Respondent to now claim that all of the owners of the several thousands of plots of land situated within the area specified by the Schedule are unidentifiable.

30.              The Petitioner state that he reasonably apprehends that the claim in paragraph 4 of ‘P1’ is an attempt to evade the statutory duty imposed by section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which states that:

“Where the Minister considers that a particular land is suitable for a public purpose …. he shall direct the acquiring officer of the district in which that             land is situated to cause a notice in accordance with subsection (3) to be           given to the owner or owners of that land and to be exhibited in some        conspicuous places on or near that land”

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MATERIAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS

31.              The Petitioner states that section 2(2) of the Land Acquisition Act specifies that the notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be in the Sinhala, Tamil and English languages.

32.              The Petitioner states however that the failure of the 1st Respondent to publish ‘P1’ in all three languages, and only in the Tamil language, amounts to non-compliance with material statutory provisions, and is therefore illegal.

33.              The Petitioner states that in light of the foregoing, the purported notice under section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act marked ‘P1’ was occasioned by mala fide, illegal and improper considerations; does not evince a public purpose; is internally contradictory and therefore irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious; is ultra vires the Land Acquisition Act; evidences an intention to evade statutory obligations to provide notices to owners under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act; and does not comply with material statutory provisions. Thus, otherwise, the purported notice ‘P1’ is illegal, void ab initio, and of no force or effect in law.

UNLAWFULNESS OF ‘P4’ AND ‘P5’

34.              The Petitioner states that, in light of the above, ‘P4’ and ‘P5’ are illegal, void ab initio, and of no force or effect in law for the reason that ‘P1’ is illegal, void ab initio, and of no force or effect in law.

35.              The Petitioner states in addition that an Order under proviso [a] to section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act [as amended] may be made only “where it becomes necessary to take immediate possession of any land on the ground of any urgency, at any time after a notice under section 2 is exhibited for the first time in the area in which that land is situated or at any time after a notice under section 4 is exhibited for the first time on or near that land.”

36.              The Petitioner states that the state security forces were already and continue to be in possession, albeit unlawfully, of the area specified in the purported Order ‘P4’. Therefore, the Petitioner states that as a matter of logical construction and law there can be no necessity for any person to take immediate possession of such lands on behalf of the State, as the State is already in possession of such lands.

37.              The Petitioner is advised to state that proviso [a] to section 38 applies in cases where the land or lands concerned are not in the possession of the State. It is thus plainly inapplicable in cases where the State is already in possession of private lands.

38.              The Petitioner states that the purported Order ‘P4’ was ostensibly not issued for the reasons permissible by law and that it was in fact issued to deny the Petitioner and other displaced landowners recourse to rights and protections that would are afforded to persons in respect of their lands in cases of land acquisition where proviso [a] to section 38 is not invoked.

39.              Therefore, the Petitioner states that the purported Order ‘P4’ is ultra vires section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act, and was occasioned by mala fide considerations. Thus and otherwise, the purported Order ‘P4’ and purported declaration ‘P5’ are ultra vires, unreasonable, offensive of the Principle of Proportionality, preceded by effective disregard for the Principles of Natural Justice, irrational and unfair. They are therefore unlawful, void ab initio, and of no force or effect in law.

40.              The Petitioner further states that, grave and irreparable loss, harm and damage would be caused to the Petitioner and to the several owners of the thousands of plots of land situated within the area specified in the Schedule to the purported notice ‘P1’, purported Order ‘P4’ and purported declaration ‘P5’ unless the Respondents are restrained from continuing to act upon the purported notice ‘P1’, purported Order ‘P4’ and purported declaration ‘P5’. The Petitioner further states that implementation of the said purported notice and the said purported Order and declaration will seriously compromise and erode the rule of law and statutory safeguards. Accordingly, the Petitioner states that unless the interim reliefs prayed for in this Petition are granted, the final reliefs prayed for in this Petition would be rendered nugatory.

41.              The Petitioner makes this application on the limited material available by reason of the time constraints imposed by the urgency of seeking the reliefs prayed for. Hence the Petitioner respectfully reserves the right to furnish such further material and/or add such other parties and/or effect such amendments to the Petition as subsequent revelations, disclosures and/or developments may necessitate.

42.              The Petitioner has not previously invoked the jurisdiction of Your Lordships’ Court in respect of this matter.

43.              The Affidavit of the Petitioner is appended hereto in support of the averments contained herein.

WHEREFORE the Petitioner respectfully prays that Your Lordships’ Court be pleased to grant and issue:

a)                  Notice on the Respondents;

b)                  An interim order preventing the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any steps based on or in reliance upon the purported notice published under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended “P1” until the hearing and final determination of this application;

c)                  An interim order preventing the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any steps to give effect to and/or act upon the purported Order published under Section 38 Proviso A of the Land Acquisition Act as amended “P4” until the hearing and final determination of this application;

d)                 An interim order preventing the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any steps to give effect to and/or act upon the purported Declaration “P5” until the hearing and final determination of this application;

e)                  A mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the purported notice under section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act [as amended] “P1”;

f)                   A mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the purported Order under Section 38 Proviso A of the Land Acqusition Act [as amended] “P4”;

g)                  A mandate in nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the purported declaration “P5”;

h)                  A mandate in the nature of a writ of prohibition preventing the Respondents, their servants and agents from acting under and/or giving effect to the purported notice under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act [as amended] “P1”;

i)                    A mandate in the nature of a writ of prohibition, preventing the Respondents, their servants and agents from acting under and/or giving effect to the purported order published under Section 38 Proviso A of the Land Acquisition Act as amended “P4”;

j)                    A mandate in the nature of a writ of prohibition preventing the Respondents, their servants and agents from acting under and/or giving effect to the purported declaration “P5”;

k)                  An order for costs; and

l)                    An order for such further and other reliefs as to Your Lordships’ Court shall seem meet.

ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW  FOR THE PETITIONER

 

Related posts;

Appeal Court Issues Notice On Respondents In Cases By 2176 Jaffna Tamils Seeking Relief Against Land Grab By Rajapaksa Regime

Acquisition Notices: Militarization Through Grabbing Of Tamil Lands

1474 Northern Tamils Petition Appeal Court To Help Prevent Grab Of Their Homes By Rajapaksa Regime

702 More Jaffna Tamils Petition Appeal Court To Prevent Damage To Their Tesawalamai Rights By Land Grab Of Rajapaksa regime

The SL Army Sabotages Awareness Program On Laws Related To Land Grabbing

Justice Sripavan Advises DSG How To Grab Lands Correctly: Right Of Reply By A Lawyer Present In Court And By Our Court Reporter

Jaffna Tamils Land Grab FR cases: Justice Sripavan Advices DSG how to Grab Lands Correctly

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    Another “alugosuwa”…………… There is no let up by the catholic Church in the North……..
    Yesterday, it was Mannar Man……… today the Jaffna Man and the GTF man Emmanuel playing pandu in Europe.
    Its again the Roman Catholic Church (Pvt) Limited……..

    This Eelam was for the Jaffna Tamil Catholics…….. towards this end
    Mgne Bondevik, Arne Fjotoft, Westborg and Erik Solhein the quartet were working to attain dring the Premeirship of Bondevik.

    There is no let by the Catholic Church yet.
    Making Jesus Christ their Master look like a Landed prorietor.

    Can’t he pray to overcome this problem??? Has he not have any faith?

    • 0
      0

      There are a few more in In Europe and england who are fighting for the same.

      Why all these for ?

      Business Franchise need more customers.

  • 0
    0

    I am appalled to read about this Land grabbing by the present Regime, and hope that the appeal Court Judges will be fair and act under the Laws of the Constitution to stop grabbing of the traditional Tamil lands in the Jaffna Peninsula by acquisition as the Tamil people have lived on these lands over the centuries which is rightfully theirs which not even our Sinhalese Kings rulers nor the Colonialists wanted as they were Sri Lankans who had every right to live in this lands no
    matter what race or creed they are. This lands were of no interest to the Sinhalese people therefore what is taking place is cleansing of the lands of the Tamils and the people by the Sinhalese power hungry Regime instead of rebuilding the ravaged lands by war helping to come to some understanding and Reconcilliation between the Sinhalese and Tamil people including other minorities. I can foresee what the future is going to be next racial and religious war. We the decent educated Sinhalese people has to join and drive out these bigoted racist who are bringing discontent and diversity among the races living in Sri Lanka.

  • 0
    0

    My family lost over 25 acres from my ancestral land near Kandy for the Mahaweli project. We had no one fighting for us like the Bishop of Jaffna. Many in the south lost their land for the construction of the southern highway. Did the good Bishop or the Catholic church fight for those people? Interestingly, did any one labeled it as a “land grab”? Why this bias towards the Sinhalese citizens? Was it not a “great heartburn, insecurity and concern” to the Sinhalese?
    The Bishop should relieve himself from this kind of political activities and use his efforts on Catholicism and spiritual work. This apply to Buddhist monks too. The government should get rid of all concessions including “tax free” status to all religions who’s clergy get involved in political activities.

    • 0
      0

      “My family lost over 25 acres from my ancestral land near Kandy for the Mahaweli project. We had no one fighting for us like the Bishop of Jaffna.”
      Should’nt you be complaining to the Mahanayake at the Dalada Maligawa for not giving two hoots about you or the people in Kandy while living on the arms of the poor.
      “Many in the south lost their land for the construction of the southern highway. Did the good Bishop or the Catholic church fight for those people?”
      A highway is for public use and it its for the grater good of the public then you cannot argue. Whats happening in the north is quite different the land taken is for the military camps and tourist resorts. Even farming land is taken and the military is farming, their salaries are paid by the state, the real owners are in camps or temporary accomadation without a proper livelyhood while the army is selling the harvest to the same people at a profit. Where is the justice in that.
      “The Bishop should relieve himself from this kind of political activities and use his efforts on Catholicism and spiritual work.”
      This is not politics but his religious duty, taking care of his flock. Hats off to him because he knows the risk he is taking but he has left that in the hands of god.

      • 0
        0

        1. Why should I complain to the Mahanayake of DM? Leave religion out of politics, the same advice I give the good Bishop. Besides, all legitimate land owners are getting land or monetary compensations similar to what I received.
        2. Have you forgotten what happened in the north during the last 30 years? I need the army in this former terror infested area permanently to make sure that all citizens are safe. Yes, I need the Army to develop this area for tourism and farming. This would increase direct and indirect employment and bring prosperity to the north.
        3. Priests are trained 7 to 8 years in the Seminary for what? Litigation?? Where are the Tamil leaders, politicians who work for the people?

  • 0
    0

    What about all the prime coastal lands that have been grabbed by the Rajapassa brothers and the military (their proxy) in the Eastern Province?
    The entire lands of the Eastern province have been taken over as Navy, Army or Air force camps and for Hotel Building by Rajapassa crony capitalists. Check out Passikudha beach there the hotel on the best spot with 400 rooms belongs to Basil Rajapassa and his cronies.. The former SEA ANGLERS CLUB is now a GOlf course run by the military!

    How did Basil Rajapakse, the uneducated LA petrol pump attendant who fancies himself minister of economic development though he knows nothing about Development or Economics – acquire all this property and capital to build hotels? ALso the same story in Kalpitita where Basil has 400 acres of prime land.. All these lands need to be returned to the people who lived there or the State and the property seized. The corrupt Rajapassa military dictatorship and land grab must cease!

    • 0
      0

      Without making it a witch hunt any govt that comes after should have a proper impartial investigation on all govt acquisitions this includes all the companies, land grabbed from all parts of the country and should also investigate how politicians accumulated so much wealth. Most of these guys have not had a real job in their whole life and what they own and what they got paid as politicians don’t add up.

  • 0
    0

    Land Grabbing is a Rajapassa Family Hobby.. Basil grabs in the east, Gota, in the North and Namal, the cherub, in the South..

    Mahindar Rajapassa meanwhile is land grabbing in Colombo 7! The family has got Lanka covered!

  • 0
    0

    I was one of many thousands who left SL during the war. The day it was over I vowed to return cos I always felt like a fish out of water overseas. There was no place like home. Here I am almost 4 years later regretting the decision I made, thanks to greedy, power hungry, petty minded politicians and their clan. Economically, physically raping and pillaging this country to fill their pockets. I guess it’s time for a Sri Lanka spring.

  • 0
    0

    In Sri Lankas history none of the post independent regime is greedy like to to grab for family.

    Now all Sri Lankans those who want to speak out are shutting their mouth in a same way Tamils were shutting their mouth in front of LTTE’s guns.

    Its not easy to continue like this for ever to ruling family. They should understand world is not barbaric as they think and act.

  • 0
    0

    In Sri Lankas history none of the post independent regime is greedy like MR family to grab national wealth family.

    Now most of the Sri Lankans who want to speak out are shutting their mouth in a same way Tamils were shutting their mouth in the past in front of LTTE’s guns as they know white vans roam all over.

    Its not easy to continue like this for ever to ruling family. They should understand world is not barbaric as they think and act.

  • 0
    0

    Arbitrary confiscation of land belonging to minorities and others to be redistributed amongst the family, catchers and military. The enormous greed of this govt is unmatched. No doubt one fine day all these will be retaken by the public.

  • 0
    0

    This daylight robbery of traditional homes of Jaffna, Northen citizens private property cannot be justified under no circumstances.

  • 0
    0

    I agree with most of the sentiments expressed . The GOSL should return all property to previous owners . However , a military presence in the North is a must .
    The Church has sullied its’ reputation due to its’ blatantly biased behaviour of the past . The Catholic hierarchy has lost all credibility as responsible citiens of Sri Lanka .People have not forgotten the treacherous back stabbing and shameless grovelling to the West during the long drawn conflict which was encouraged by their masters in Norway and others with vested interests .

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.