Sarvodaya Sramadana Samithiya vs Urban Development Authority – CA PHC/175/2012-2017

In the case between Chairman, Sarvodaya Sramadana Samithiya, Kirihandigoda, Hikkaduwa (Appellant) and Urban Development Authority, Sethsiripaya, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte, Battaramulla (Respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the Urban Development Authority lawfully issued a notice under section 4 of the Urban Development Authority (UDA) Act and whether the Appellant was entitled to challenge a “quit notice” or its existence. The court held that no “quit notice” had been issued and that the dismissal by the Provincial High Court of the Appellant’s revision application was justified due to absence of merit. The principle reaffirmed was that judicial intervention in revision proceedings is warranted only on demonstrable merit or legal error, and not in the absence of compellin