Home Sri Lankan Cases Ven. Ellawala Medananda Thero v District Secretary, Ampara and Others

Supreme Court
S.N. Silva CJ, Gamini Amaratunga J, P.A. Ratnayake J,
Key words
Article 10; 12 (1) & 12 (2)
Cases referred to

Liyanage v Gampola U.C. 1991 1 Sri LR 1

Manohara de Silva PC, A Wijesundara

Faiz Musthapha, Faizer Marker, Thushani Machado

M.A. Sumanthiran, E. Keegal

Dilshan Kayasuriya 

Prasantha Lal de Silva 

J.C. Weliamuna

Razick PC with U. L. M. Mowjood for 2 intervenient petitioners.

Iqbal Mohamedwith M. I. M. Ishan for 2 intervenient petitioners.

Iqbal Mohamed with M. I. M. Nazeer for 2 intervenient petitioners.

Nimal Fernando PC with Rajendra Jayasinghe and Gamini Perera for 1

intervenient petitioner

Uditha Egalahewawith Ranga Dayananda for 2 intervenient petitioners

  1. P. Kumarasinghe PC with Shameendra Rodrigo and Mahendra

Kumarasinghe for 2 intervenient petitioners

Palitha Kumarasinghe PC with Priyantha Abeyagunawardane for 2

intervenient petitioners

Upul Jayasuriya with Lelum Kumarasinghe and M. Madhubashini

for 3 interventent petitioners

  1. S. de Silva with Vinod Wickremasinghe, Deeptha Perera, Dilshan

Wijewardane and Wishva Mettananda for 3 intervenient petitioners

  1. D. Weeraratnewith Eranga Abeykumara for 2 intervenient petitioners

Sanjeewa with Sandamali Chandrasirifor 1 intervenient petitioner

Kushan de Alwis with Kaushalya Nawaratne for 3 intervenient


Pubudinie Wickremaratne for 1 intervenient petitioner

Vishwa Gunaratne w ith Lasitha Chaminda for 1 intervenient


Prasanthalal de Alwis with Sampath Gamage for 1 intervenient


Mrs. Jayasinghe B. Tillakaratne D S G w ith Sudharshi Herath

SC for 1st – 4th, 6th – 8th, 12th respondents.

  1. de Silva w ith Deeptha Perera for 30th and 55th respondents


Counsel who appeared
Date of Decision
Judgement by Name of Judge/s
Sarath N Silva CJ
Noteworthy information relating to the case

FR Application allowed.

Other information

Ven. Ellawala Medananda Thero v District Secretary, Ampara and Others

[2009] 1 SLR 54

Facts of the case

The petitioner alleged that the decision taken by the respondents to alienate about 60 Acres of land located 13 km to the South of the Deegavapi Raja Maha Viharaya (one of the 16 most venerated sites of Buddhists in Sri Lanka), to 500 Muslim famiies, infringes the rights guaranteed under article 10 and 12. Their contention was that the settlement of a large number of Muslims in the area would infringe the freedom of religion.

Findings related to FoRB

Discrimination: economic, political, criminal justice.


(1) ‘State land is held by the executive in trust for the People and may be alienated only as permitted by law…impugned alienation is bereft of any legal authority and has been effected in a process which is not bona fide.’ (2) ‘On the preceding analysis of evidence, the Petitioners have established an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 12 (1), 12 (1) and 10 of the Constitution.