Abstract:
The compulsory acquisition of privately owned land by the State exercising its right of
eminent domain has been identified as a principle which coexists with the well known
conception of absolutism of private property. It is a common feature in most of the
jurisdictions, particularly in countries like India, United States of America, Australia,
South Africa etc. to allow such right of the State to be exercised subject to the pre
qualification that such acquisition should be for a “public purpose”. The Land Acquisition
Act (as amended) No. 09 of 1950 (LAA) which facilitates the compulsory acquisition of
lands in Sri Lanka is no exception to this common practice. The expression “public
purpose” has been identified as incapable of a precise and rigid definition. What is meant
by the term “public purpose” may vary from one society to another based on the socio,
economic and political concepts that prevail in such a society. Even within a society, the
term “public purpose” may take different shapes at different times. Therefore, the State or
effectively the government of the day has been identified as the appropriate authority to
decide whether a particular purpose is a public purpose or not.
Though public purpose provides the basic justification for the State interference with
private property rights, the vagueness of the definition provided in the LAA and the
limitless expansionary capacity of the term “public purpose” have resulted in the arbitrary
exercise of power in relation to land acquisition. Ministers and other government officials
have sought to make use of the public purpose rule for acquisition of land, driven by
personal reasons and ulterior motives.
The emerging phase in the Sri Lankan economy with regard to infrastructure
developments indubitably necessitates large scale land acquisitions. Thus, the existing
position in relation to the public purpose rule would have to be understood in the light of
the welfare notion of the state as adopted in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the power of the
executive to deprive people of their land to which they are intimately connected as
individuals and as a community, based on the justification of “public purpose” would
easily be misinterpreted and may result in the creation of unrest among different
communities.
