W. Saman Danarathna v. Secretory, Provincial Secretory Office, Maharagama – CA PHC NO. 176/08-2008

In the case between W. Saman Danarathna (Appellant) and the Secretary, Provincial Secretary Office, Maharagama (Respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to occupy state land without a valid permit or written authority as required by law. The court held that, absent proof of such authority, continued occupation was unlawful, thereby upholding the appellant’s eviction and dismissing the appeal. The legal principle reaffirmed was that lawful occupation of state land must be established by a permit or written authority pursuant to the State Land Recovery of Possession Act No.17 of 1979. Precedents such as Aravindakumar v. Alwis (2007) and Muhandiram v. Chairman, Janatha Estate Development Board (1992) were relied upon, emphasizing the necessity for stric