Jayasooriya v Nanayakkara & Another – sllr 2004 volume 3 page 342

In the case between Jayasooriya (plaintiff) and Nanayakkara and Another (defendants), the court addressed the issue of whether a deed (P6) transferring state land, executed in 1965, was valid despite the notary’s attestation omitting express reference to the Government Agent’s documented consent as required by section 162 of the Land Development Ordinance No. 19 (as amended). It was held that the procedural compliance was adequate for the deed’s validity, and the absence of specific mention in the notary’s attestation did not render the transaction void. The decision reaffirmed that substantial conformity with statutory requirements could suffice if the deed fulfilled the underlying intent of the provision. Reliance was placed on the interpretation and application of section 162 of the Lan