Revision Can Be Filed Against Magistrate’s Order on State Land
High Court’s Revisionary Jurisdiction Is Limited Only by Territory, Not Subject Matter- SC
A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has recently held that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court is limited only by territorial boundaries and not by subject matter. This means that a High Court can exercise revisionary powers over a Magistrate’s order even where the dispute involves state land so long as the land in question lies within the province where the High Court exercises jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between revisionary jurisdiction and writ jurisdiction of the High Court. While writ jurisdiction under the Constitution is subject to both territorial and subject matter limitations, the revisionary jurisdiction under the Constitution is limited only territorially. Therefore, the High Court has the constitutional authority to entertain revision applications concerning any subject matter, including state land, provided it arises within its geographical jurisdiction.
The case originated when a Magistrate issued an order of ejectment against an individual occupying state land under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act No. 07 of 1979. The aggrieved party then filed a revision application before the High Court, challenging the Magistrate’s order. However, the High Court dismissed the application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction on the basis that the matter related to state land, which it viewed as falling outside its subject matter jurisdiction. The aggrieved party subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the High Court’s decision and held in favour of the aggrieved party. A Special Leave to Appeal was then filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision and contending that the High Court does not have revisionary jurisdiction over matters involving state land.
This five-judge bench of the Supreme Court also overruled its earlier decision in Walallawita Kankanamlage Mahinda v. Herath Mudiayanselage Nandasena, Divisional Secretary, Meegahakivula [S.C. Special Leave to Appeal No. 211/2013; S.C.M. 20.01.2014].
“…There is a clear distinction between revisionary and writ jurisdiction. The High Court has revisionary jurisdiction in respect of convictions, sentences and orders entered or imposed by Magistrates Courts within the Province. It is not limited by subject matter. On the other hand, the writ jurisdiction vested in the High Court has both territorial and subject matter limitations. The High Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine a writ application made against a quit notice issued under the Act as it is not in respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Council List of the 9th Schedule to the Constitution. An application made to the Magistrates Court under the Act deals with state lands. Nevertheless, a High Court has the power to hear and determine an application made in revision against an order made by a Magistrate’s Court upon such an application made under the Act…” – Justice Janak De Silva
Is There Only One High Court in Sri Lanka?
In this case, the Supreme Court also examined a longstanding interpretative issue regarding the nature and structure of the High Court system in Sri Lanka. The Court traced the historical and constitutional evolution of the High Court: from its establishment under Article 105(1) of the 1978 Constitution, through the 11th Amendment, and the later creation of Provincial High Courts under Article 154P of the 13th Amendment. The judgment clarified that all these provisions refer to the same unified High Court institution, with territorial divisions for administrative and functional purposes but constitutionally one and the same court.
“…One question that arises at the outset, is whether the High Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka, the High Court of Sri Lanka and the High Court of the Province is one and the same Court. In Sriyawathie v. Superintendent, Hapugastenne Estate and Others [(1997) 1 Sri.L.R. 1] it was held that the Court referred to in Articles 105(1)(c), 111 (1) and 154P(2) of the Constitution is one and the same Court namely the High Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka (High Court)…” – Justice Janak De Silva
Case No: S.C. Appeal No. 62/2018 [Decided on 24.03.2025]
Before : Hon. Murdu N. B. Fernando, P.C., CJ. Hon. S. Thurairaja, P.C., J. Hon. E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J. Hon. A. L. Shiran Gooneratne, J. Hon. Janak De Silva, J.
