The Supreme Court recently clarified an important legal issue regarding the applicability of Section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act in a case where an attempt was made to misuse a court order obtained under the Agrarian Development Act to evict a party who was not subject to the original eviction order. The Court …
Primary Court Can Step In When Court Orders Are Misused to Take Over Land
- Even if there’s a court order, a Section 66 application can be used when someone misuses that order to grab land and cause a breach of peace.
The Supreme Court recently clarified an important legal issue regarding the applicability of Section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act in a case where an attempt was made to misuse a court order obtained under the Agrarian Development Act to evict a party who was not subject to the original eviction order. The Court stated that if an eviction order is enforced against individuals not named in the order or in a manner beyond its scope, it can give rise to new disputes requiring resolution through a competent court. In such cases, if a breach of peace occurs and the dispute involves land, the Primary Court has jurisdiction under Section 66 to intervene and issue necessary orders to maintain peace, unless explicitly barred by law.
Background
The dispute began when an agrarian case was filed in the Magistrate’s Court (MC) seeking to evict a person from a six-acre paddy land. The court granted the eviction order. However, the second party respondents, who were not named in the original eviction order but were affected by its execution, lodged a complaint with the police. In response, the police initiated a case under Section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act.
The Court, considering the circumstances, ruled that the possession of the second party respondents should be restored to prevent any breach of peace. The petitioner, dissatisfied with this decision, sought to challenge the order, ultimately leading to the case being taken up before the Supreme Court.
The key question the Supreme Court had to determine was whether Section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act could be used to counteract an order previously issued by a Magistrate’s Court. The petitioner argued that an order issued under the Agrarian Development Act should not be subject to interference through Section 66 proceedings. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, outlining specific reasons why the primary court’s intervention was justified in this case such as:
- Lack of clarity in the extent of land covered by the eviction order – The order in MC Case No. 42705 specified a six-acre paddy land, but there was no conclusive evidence that the lands possessed by the second-party respondents fell within this area.
- Petitioner’s acceptance of a breach of peace – The petitioner had previously acknowledged in her own affidavit that a dispute existed, which indicated that a breach of peace had indeed arisen.
- The eviction order was not directed at the second-party respondents – The order was specifically against A.J.S.P. Jinadasa and did not authorize the eviction of the second-party respondents in MC Case No. 43361.
- No evidence that the fiscal officer evicted the second-party respondents
- Possible misuse of the court order by the petitioner – The petitioner may have misled the fiscal officer or taken additional lands beyond the scope of the eviction order, thereby wrongfully dispossessing the second-party respondents.
- The fiscal officer who executed the order was not a party to the Section 66 case – Since the Section 66 case was against the conduct of the petitioner, and not an official act of a judicial officer, the case was not an improper challenge to a court order.
- Primary Court’s role in maintaining peace – The dispute before the Primary Court was not about cultivation rights but about preventing a breach of peace resulting from an alleged wrongful dispossession.
“….It is true that a dispossession caused through a court order per se under normal circumstances cannot be considered as an instance that may give rise to a breach of peace that paves way for an application in terms of section 66 of the Primary Court Procedure Act. If it is considered so, no court order could be implemented. However, if it is done in abuse of process or not in accordance with the order made or against people who does not contemplate in the said order, it may give rise to new causes of action or disputes that may have to be resolved through a competent Court or a forum. As such, if breach of peace occurs and if it is a dispute involving land, till that is resolved, the Primary Court may get jurisdiction in terms of section 66 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act to involve and make appropriate order in accordance with the law to maintain peace unless it is specifically prohibited by law…”
“…If one misuses or abuse the power of a court, it is using force of law unlawfully and possession gained by such means has to be considered forcible and unlawful. Thus, there was a situation to be resolved by a proper court or a forum as to the possession of land and as such the Primary Court had jurisdiction to intervene and make suitable order to maintain peace…” – Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara
Case No: SC/APPEAL/56/2018 [05.02.2025]
Before: Hon. Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J. Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J. Hon. Achala Wengappuli, J.
