Kurunegala resident claims his land taken fraudulently
In a case filed by a resident of Kurunegala against the unlawful eviction and claim of his property by fraudulent means, the Court of Appeal reserved its order.
The petitioner A.K.G.S.G Abhayatunge alleged that the respondent Mohamed Faizal Hazim has claimed the land which belongs to him by producing forged documents.
Court of Appeal Justices L.K.Wimalachandra and Eric Basnayake reserved the order for April 1 and directed that written submissions be filed on March 24.
The petitioner claimed that he was the rightful owner of a piece of land 26 perches in extent with a house bordering the Kandy road at Kurunegala. He said that he had purchased the land from the previous owner Mr Molagoda. He stated that his land was adjoining the land of Mr. Hazim who had claimed the land 33.75 perches in extent from the Piyaratne family on a transfer.
The petitioner said that the property (Lot 5) formerly belonging to Mr. Piyaratne had a house which was called ‘Sinhagiri Nivasa’ and the house that belonged to Mr Abhayatunge was earlier called ‘Sinhagiri’ was located in Lot 1. Evidence to prove that Mr. Hazim had mortgaged his block of land of 33.75 perches to the State Mortgage and Investment Bank and was subsequently auctioned on January 4, 2006 was also produced in courts. He had defaulted payment to the bank for 20 years and following the auction Mr. Hazim has lost the ownership of the property.
The petitioner said that he was residing at the said premises since 1990. He said that the respondent had with the help of the Registrar/Fiscal H.D. Wickramasinghe evicted the petitioner in September 30, 2004 by giving false information. The fiscal had wrongfully ejected the owner of Lot 1 Mr. Abayatunge instead of implementing the court order on Lot 5, the adjourning land.
He stated that he had filed a case and the Kurunegala District Court Judge Ranjith Wathupola had dismissed his application.
The petitioner’s lawyers pointed out that the Court Commissioner’s report, plan or evidence had not been considered by the District Court on the influence of the Registrar. Despite Mr. Abayatunge submitting written submissions to the Registrar before the judgment, the submissions had been filed by the Registrar only after the order delivered.
In an earlier case filed by Mr. Hazim the former owner of Lot 1 had also been fraudulently included as a respondent. However the former owner had not attended court as he had not received summons.
An ex-parte judgment had been issued in this respect but was not relevant to Lot 1 owned by Mr. Abayatunge’s former owner. Therefore the previous owner or the petitioner is not a Judgment Debtor and/or was a judgment debtor at all.