Developer files action in Supreme Court against NHDA, Police

• FR case filed after NHDA illegally takes possession of 214-perch land at Darley Road
• Lanka Realty Investments subsidiary Oak Street has invested over Rs. 2.4 b for the development land with world-renowned architect Carlos Ott commissioned to provide architectural services for proposed project named as the ‘Diamond Tower’
• NHDA takes possession of land even after entire payment due worth Rs. 812 m settled in full, says LRI Group in petition

Oak Street Ltd., a BOI-registered company, on Friday went to the Supreme Court against the National Housing Development Authority (NHDA) and the Police, alleging violation of the Fundamental Rights (FR) guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The move follows NHDA “illegally” taking possession of the 214 perches of land at Darley Road owned by Oak Street, the subsidiary of real estate investor and developer Lanka Realty Investments PLC (LRI), as exclusively reported by the Daily FT last week.

The Petition states that Oak Street (formerly known as L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Lanka Ltd.) had purchased this land from the NHDA in or about 2006 and a joint venture agreement was signed with the NHDA. In terms of this joint venture agreement, the NHDA was entitled to be paid a total of Rs. 812 million, which included the consideration and profit share of the NHDA under the deeds and the joint venture agreement.

The joint venture agreement unequivocally provides that “all financial obligations of L&T Lanka towards the National Housing Development Authority shall stand completed and satisfied and L&T Lanka shall become absolute owner having clear and marketable title over the said Land free from any encumbrances pursuant to which it shall enjoy uninterrupted possession of the said Land and be entitled to deal with the said Land”.

 The Petitioners state that, accordingly, the entire payment due to the NHDA has been paid and settled in full to the NHDA.

In this background, the Petitioners allege that on or about 6 August, a group of private individuals wearing uniforms of a security company purporting to be under the authority from the first Respondent Authority attempted to enter the property owned by the first Petitioner, Oak Street, whose security personnel resisted the attempt to enter the land without any legal authority. 

On the same day, the second Petitioner, a director of Oak Street filed a complaint at the Maradana Police Station out of an abundance of caution.

The Petitioners allege that, thereafter, the Maradana Police held an Inquiry on 11, 16 and 30 August wherein representatives of the Petitioners attended, on 6 August a security officer of the NHDA who came to inspect the said Land attended the Inquiry and on 30 August, the Director Lands of the NDHA attended the said Inquiry. 

However, no document or a valid Court Order was produced at the said Police inquiry by the officials of the NHDA on the basis of which they unlawfully attempted to enter the land. Accordingly, the Inquiring Officer on 30 August gave further time for the officials of the NHDA to produce the legal documents and to record a statement in this regard so as to be able to conduct the Police inquiry thereafter.

To the utter shock and dismay of the Petitioners, whilst the aforesaid Police inquiry was pending, during the morning hours on or about 19 September, which was a Sunday, a large group of persons in vehicles including officials of the NHDA and Police officers from the Maradana Police Station forcibly, unlawfully and without any Order of Court or any valid legal authority entered the land. The Petitioners allege that some of the persons who entered the land were clearly not officials of the NHDA, but private individuals.

The spokesman for LRI stated that, when the security personnel refused to open the gate, these persons jumped over the perimeter fence and threatened the security personnel and forced open the gate. The Petitioners allege that there were around eight to 10 Police officers attached to the Maradana Police Station at the said Land, with most of these officers not even wearing their uniforms. 

Subsequently, the Police officers illegally and unlawfully arrested the first Petitioner’s security personnel who were performing their duty at the land, instead of the criminal trespassers, and they were taken to the Maradana Police Station in violation of their rights in terms of Article 13(1) of the Constitution.

The Petition alleges that, thereafter, Police officers were stationed at the entrance to the land, who threatened the security officers of the first Petitioner and its authorised representatives that they will arrest anyone who attempts to enter the land owned by the first Petitioner.

The Petitioners state that thereafter, when they attended the Maradana Police Station with their legal counsel, it transpired that a Manager of the NHDA had made a statement in the morning of 19 September ‘seeking police protection’ prior to the aforesaid concerted act of criminal trespass into the property owned by the first Petitioner.

The Petition states that the collusive and illegal acts of the officers of the Maradana Police can be ascertained by the fact that they entertained such a statement, knowing full well that a complaint had already been recorded against the NHDA and also that the officials of the NHDA had evaded proper representation at the said Inquiry on three occasions (11, 16 and 30 August), by failing to send any responsible officer who had knowledge about the subject matter. 

Further, the said Police officers had gone on to participate in the said unlawful activity without first having satisfied themselves that there was a valid order from a Court of competent jurisdiction authorising the NHDA to enter the land.

The Petition alleges that when the officials of the company confronted the OIC of Maradana Police regarding the unlawful actions of the said Police officers, he merely stated that they were ‘protecting Government officers’ and he had been given orders by Senior DIG Deshabandu Tennakoon to carry out such unlawful acts.

The Petitioners state that they were shocked that officers of the Sri Lanka Police would engage in the act of aiding and abetting unlawful criminal trespassers into the said Land owned and possessed by the first Petitioner and that they have lodged a formal complaint to the Inspector General of Police in this regard.

The Petitioners, to date, have invested over Rs. 2.4 billion for the development of the land with the world-renowned architect Carlos Ott had been commissioned to provide architectural services for the proposed project which was named the ‘Diamond Tower project’ and several detailed reports and drawings had been done in this regard.

The Petition alleges that at a time when the country is facing an exodus of foreign investors and a foreign exchange crisis due to various reasons, such as the Easter Attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic, these utterly irresponsible actions of a State-entity such as the NHDA acting in collusion with the Police, which undermines the rules of law, will severely damage the reputation of Sri Lanka in the eyes of foreign investors and be a massive blow to investor confidence.