7-year languish for buyers of Waters Edge villa plots over UDA failure to honour Supreme Court rulin

Over 50 buyers of Waters Edge villa plots have been languishing for the past seven years sans any compensation owing to the failure of the UDA to honour the Supreme Court ruling. 

The estimated total capital payment when the Supreme Court ruled in 2009 in favour of buyers was over Rs. 2 billion i.e. Rs. 44 million per plot. The Court also ruled payment of stamp duties and legal interest. Funds were to be credited to the Registrar of the Supreme Court. 

The failure by the Urban Development Authority (UDA) since then is estimated to have bloated the cost further at the expense of public money.

Some of the buyers who sought justice via legal means are appalled that an organ of the State i.e. the UDA has been flaunting the Supreme Court ruling for years. “UDA action tantamount to ridiculing an order made by the highest Court in Sri Lanka. How can people and investors have confidence in the judicial system?” they queried. 

The callous disregard for the Supreme Court ruling has caused considerable financial loss to buyers, among whom are business and civil society leaders and sports personalities. 

It was pointed out that had the UDA respected the Supreme Court order and settled the buyer soon after, the State could have avoided extra funds by way of interests for several years owing to the delay.

The buyers originally purchased plots of lands from Asia Pacific Golf Course Ltd. and the UDA. Subsequently, as the project ran into problems, several buyers filed Fundamental Rights applications to the Supreme Court in 2007. Thereafter the Court in March 2009 ordered the UDA not to release monies to Asia Pacific Golf Course and instead pay the owners of residential blocks from the monies payable by the UDA to Asia Pacific Golf Course Ltd.

In recent years, heads of UDA have acknowledged the Supreme Court order and had given undertaking to the Registrar of the Supreme Court as well as petitioners that steps were being taken to comply. 

Failure by the UDA to honour the Supreme Court ruling prompted some buyers in 2010 to institute fresh action in the District Court against the UDA and Asia Pacific Golf Course Ltd., claiming loss and damages. 

As a compromise, in lieu of cash some buyers had expressed willingness to accept alternate lands. If this was acceptable, the petitioners had said they would drop the cases and forego claim of damages.

As per Supreme Court order of 30 March 2009 in the Waters Edge case SCFR 352/2007: “The UDA will pay compensation to those intervenient Petitioners in terms of the motion dated 20 March 2009 filed by Attorney-at-Law for the intervenient Petitioners. Payment should be made according to the sum set out in the 5th column comprising of the purchase price and the stamp duty. Payment will additionally include legal interest from the respective dates on which the 4th respondent received payment as per document marked 4RY1, filed by the 4th respondent in this case, which concedes that these monies were indeed received by him for the allotments of land referred to herein.

“These sums are to be paid out of the compensation payable by the UDA to the 4th Respondent in terms of Judgment. The UDA is to inform this Court of the date on which payment would be made on the next date. The intervenient Petitioners could file a motion seeking direct payment of these sums from the 4th Respondent and/or the 6th Respondents at any stage if there is a likelihood of the payment of such compensation by the UDA being delayed. This order will not preclude the intervenient Petitioners, or those who have paid consideration for the aforesaid blocks of land but have not intervened in this case, from filing action in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for recovery of any loss or damages.”

On 11 December 2009, the Supreme Court Bench gave the following judgment: “The UDA and/or the Secretary of the Treasury is also directed by this Court to note that before the monies are released to this Court that they should intimate to this Court the date on which the monies will be received in order that the Intervenient Petitioners could be noticed for the purpose of collection of these monies. A copy of this order to be sent under registered cover and served on the 3 and 3A respondent and the Secretary of the Treasury. 

“In terms of an order of this Court already made on 9 November 2009, after the aforesaid sums are paid to the 1st set of Intervenient Petitioners referred to in the schedule to the motion dated 30 March 2009, the next set of Intervenient Petitioners who sought Intervention subsequently by motion and petition dated 29 October 2009 would be entitled to receive the total purchase price together with the stamp duty paid by them in terms of the document marked 4RY1 filed by the 4th Respondent in this court, and the Registrar is directed to take steps in this regard also. Both sets of Intervenient Petitioners would also be entitled to receive legal interest from the respective dates that the 4th Respondent received payment in terms of the document marked 4RY1 referred to above. If the balance sum of money remaining in this Court is insufficient to make such payment to these Intervenient Petitioners, then such Intervenient Petitioners shall be paid this sum on a pro rata basis out of such balance sum.

“Any other person who has purchased a block of this land adverted to in the judgment who has not been intervenient Petitioner in this case is permitted to make his/her claims for payment out of any remaining sums. Any sums of money remaining in this court after payment of all the Intervenient Petitioners would be paid thereafter to the 4th Respondent Company. Any Intervenient Petitioner is not precluded by this order from the right to file a civil action in a competent court of civil jurisdiction for the recovery of compensation or loss/damages.”