would enable you to enjoy an array of other services such as Member Rankings, User Groups, Own Posts & Profile, Exclusive Research, Live Chat Box etc.. 
Home
The land allocated to Sevanagala project is State land and possessed by the Sri Lanka Sugar Company Ltd., therefore this land cannot be vested with the State, so contended the Counsel for the Sevanagala Sugar Company.
The Writ application seeking the Court of Appeal for an order prohibiting the taking possession of land/assets from the Sevanagala Sugar Company was came up yesterday (21) before the Bench comprising Justices W. L. Ranjith deleted and A. W. A. Salam.
Petitioner Sevanagala Sugar Industries Ltd cited Prime Minister M. D. Jayaratne, Members of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Cabinet Secretary and the Attorney General as Respondents.
Romesh de deleted PC with Nihal Fernando PC, Sugath Caldera and Eraj de deleted instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared for the Petitioner.
Deputy Solicitors General Shavindra Fernando and Sanjay Rajaratnam and Senior State Counsel Nerin Pulle appeared for the Attorney General.
Counsel Romesh de deleted PC for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner Sevanagala Sugar Industries Ltd is a leasee and the said land is State land. He queries how one can vest the State land to State and maintained that one cannot vest the land which one is not owner of the said land. He argued that the said land is not vested.
Deputy Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando submitted the said land has already been vested by the certification of the Speaker on 11 November the Bill titled “Revival of Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilised assets”.
Once the Bill becomes operative once it is certified by the Speaker and it is the duty and obligation of the Cabinet of Ministers to nominate the Competent Authority, he contended.
Therefore nothing should stay the operation of the Bill which has become law but it is only for the implementation of the law, Deputy Solicitor General maintained.
Counsel Romesh de deleted drew the attention of the Court that it is a matter for argument and sought the Court to issue notices.The Court, after having heard the submissions of both parties, fixed its decision for today (22) on whether to issue notices or not.
You may also like to read
Supreme Court refuses six FR petitions on Revival Bill
SC refers FR case on Revival Bill to CJ
Revival Bill passed despite raging rivalry
Pelwatte Sugar awaits Treasury instructions
Sevanagala farmers threaten fast unto death
http://www.ft.lk/2011/11/22/state-land-cannot-be-vested-with-state-contends-sevanagala-sugar-industries/
The Writ application seeking the Court of Appeal for an order prohibiting the taking possession of land/assets from the Sevanagala Sugar Company was came up yesterday (21) before the Bench comprising Justices W. L. Ranjith deleted and A. W. A. Salam.
Petitioner Sevanagala Sugar Industries Ltd cited Prime Minister M. D. Jayaratne, Members of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Cabinet Secretary and the Attorney General as Respondents.
Romesh de deleted PC with Nihal Fernando PC, Sugath Caldera and Eraj de deleted instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared for the Petitioner.
Deputy Solicitors General Shavindra Fernando and Sanjay Rajaratnam and Senior State Counsel Nerin Pulle appeared for the Attorney General.
Counsel Romesh de deleted PC for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner Sevanagala Sugar Industries Ltd is a leasee and the said land is State land. He queries how one can vest the State land to State and maintained that one cannot vest the land which one is not owner of the said land. He argued that the said land is not vested.
Deputy Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando submitted the said land has already been vested by the certification of the Speaker on 11 November the Bill titled “Revival of Underperforming Enterprises and Underutilised assets”.
Once the Bill becomes operative once it is certified by the Speaker and it is the duty and obligation of the Cabinet of Ministers to nominate the Competent Authority, he contended.
Therefore nothing should stay the operation of the Bill which has become law but it is only for the implementation of the law, Deputy Solicitor General maintained.
Counsel Romesh de deleted drew the attention of the Court that it is a matter for argument and sought the Court to issue notices.The Court, after having heard the submissions of both parties, fixed its decision for today (22) on whether to issue notices or not.
You may also like to read
Supreme Court refuses six FR petitions on Revival Bill
SC refers FR case on Revival Bill to CJ
Revival Bill passed despite raging rivalry
Pelwatte Sugar awaits Treasury instructions
Sevanagala farmers threaten fast unto death
http://www.ft.lk/2011/11/22/state-land-cannot-be-vested-with-state-contends-sevanagala-sugar-industries/
