Slave Island residents’rights case before SC on April 4

Settlement with UDA not a possibility, says petitioners’ counsel

The Supreme Court fixed the Slave Island residents’ fundamental rights application for argument on April 4, as petitioners’ counsel indicated that there was no possibility of a settlement in the rights case against the Urban Development Authority (UDA).

The petition was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Mohan Pieris PC and Justices P.A. Ratnayake PC and Priyasath Dep PC.

Petitioners’ Counsel Sujeewa Senasinghe complained to the Court that the seventh respondent who is not a UDA official was present at the UDA mobile office set up in the neighborhood in line with the directions given by Court on the last occasion.The counsel alleged that the seventh respondent was intimidating the residents who had come to the office to register their choices - whether they would opt for the rental payments to find accommodation until relocation or take full compensation and move out, in terms of the Supreme Court order.

He requested the court to inquire into the allegation against the seventh respondent.

The President’s Counsel appearing for the UDA informed Court that in line with the previous Court order a mobile office of the UDA had been set up in the residents’ neighbourhood to ascertain how many residents would opt for compensation and move out and how many would want to take the rental payments.

The President’s Counsel informed court that the mobile office was open on four days from Friday to Monday.

He also informed Court that already 317 persons were willing to take rental payments to find accommodation until they are relocated in new apartments to be constructed at the original place of their residence and that 164 persons wanted their property valued so that they could decide whether to move out or not after they get the valuation report from the Chief Valuer.

Later, during the proceedings when Counsel Sujeewa Senasinghe and junior counsel Farman Cassim were attempting to walk out Chief Justice Mohan Pieris reprimanded them and said he would take action against them if they repeated their misbehaviour.

The Chief Justice warned that there should be decorum and discipline in Court and if the counsel are to leave Court in the middle of proceedings it would amount to Contempt of Court.

Earlier, Counsel Senasinghe indicated that he was not happy the way the proceedings were unfolding.

Vacating the stay order that was issued earlier in February asking the parties to maintain the status quo, Court asked the UDA to go ahead with the project.A group of residents living in the land located in Slave Island complained to the Court that their houses located in the area of Malay Street, Justice Akbar Mawatha, Java Place and Masjidul Jamiah Mawatha, would be demolished and acquired for the “Redevelopment of the Slave Island Area" project.

The petitioners stated the residents were notified on December 29, 2010 about the project and the UDA commenced work on it without consulting them.

They complained their rights are violated by the acquisition as the Indian company would not better their lives by any means; they would lose their livelihood and the education of their children would be interrupted.

They said only the TATA Housing Development Company which would get the land free for development will be benefited by the project.

The residents stated that the land would be given to the Company to construct an apartment complex for the area residents and the rest of the land would be given free to the company for its own business purposes.

They alleged that although the lands are acquired for a public purpose, in reality it is a business venture.

The petitioners sought a court declaration that the notice issued under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, to acquire their lands is null and void.

Counsel Sujeewa Senasinghe with Farman Cassim appeared for the petitioners. Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne with State Counsel Dr. Avanti Perera appeared for the Colombo Divisional Secretary and the Attorney General.

Sanjeeva Jayawardena PC instructed by Sudath Perera Associates appeared for the UDA and its Chairman.

Faizer Musthapha PC appeared for Secretary to the Defence and Urban Development Ministry.

The hearing was fixed for April 4.

Petitioners’ Counsel Sujeewa Senasinghe alleged that the seventh respondent was intimidating the residents who had come to the office to register their choices