Petition filed claiming Rs.100 million from former President

Alleged deceitful release of State land for private golf course:

Sarath Malalasekera and Sandasen Marasinghe

COLOMBO: Two retired civil servants yesterday filed a fundamental rights case against former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and fifteen others before the Supreme Court claiming compensation of Rs 100 million each from the first and the fifth respondents for allegedly releasing a State land on concessionary terms at Kalapaluwawa Rajagiriya to Asia Pacific Golf Course Ltd, which was earlier acquired from the original landowners for a public purpose of urban development but later used to construct a private Golf Course.

The petitioners Sugathapala Medis of Panadura and Raja Melreoy Blasius Sennanayake of Karlsruhe Gardens, Colombo 10 cited former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Minister of Lands, Chairman of Urban Development Authority, Urban Development Authority, Asia Pacific Golf Course Ltd, Ronnie Pieris, Sumal Perera, Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Shantha Elroy Godwin Wijesinghe, Siva Selvaratnam, Suweneetha Selvaratnam, Divisional Secretary of Kaduwela, Attorney General, Amir Ismail, Chairman of Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption and Director General of Bribery Commission, Piyasena Ranasinghe as respondents.

The petitioners filing the fundamental right case through their attorneys-at-law Samararatne Associates stated in their petition that the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Chairman Amir Ismail and its Director General Piyasena Ranasinghe should to take steps to investigate and initiate legal proceedings in terms of the Bribery or Corruption Act No. 19 of 1994 and Act No 20 of 1994 amending Bribery Act No 38 of 1974 and Act No 9 of 1980 against (first respondent) former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga with regard to the exercise of abuse of power and corruption committed by misleading the Cabinet of Ministers through Cabinet Memorandum dated February 9th, 1998 in order to deceitfully alienate acquired State land in violation of the procedure laid down for the same purpose, distinctly intended for "public purpose" into fraudulent private business purposes and facilitating to unlawfully benefit the fourth and fifth respondents (Asia Pacific Golf Course Ltd and Ronnie Pieris of Kynsey Rd Colombo) and the (6th respondent) Sumal Perera of Tickle Rd Colombo 8 and or the 9 to 11 respondents.

The petitioners also stated: The 1st Petitioner is a citizen of Sri Lanka. The Petitioner was a public servant and retired from the public service on 9th April 1982. The Petitioners file this application before Your Lordships' Court in the public interest and in view of their desire to ensure a non corruptible governance process detailed hereinafter.

The 1st Petitioner has published books in Sinhala langauge under the titles of "You are the saviour of yourself', "Belief of re-incarnation" and "Psychic powers that roam in sansara" and contributed many articles on subjects relating to History and Social Reforms and biographs to many Journals and Newspapers.

The Second Petitioner is Retired Civil Servant, Government Agent, Deputy Director of the Budget Department of the Treasury, Director of Combined Services in the Ministry of Public Administration.

The Second Petitioner has also qualified in B.Sc. Econ Lon. MPIA University of Pitsburgh, Dag Hammarksjoeld Fellow, and Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Cost and Management Accountants, London.

The Second Petitioner has contributed many articles to Newspapers and Journals on economic affairs.

The petitioners respectfully state that it is of utmost importance that public funds and State property be used for the benefit of the public in a transparent manner and not for the benefit of any individual/s holding political office and/ or for their personal or political favourites and/ or friends.

The Petitioners further state that, where public funds or property is misused in the above manner, such action is rendered all the more heinous when there is abuse of office and/or corruption evidenced and/or a financial interest/benefit/advantage accrues to any individual holding political office either directly or through the medium of interested third persons who also, themselves benefit from such illegal and/or corrupt transactions.

The Petitioners state that that the said transaction as referred to herein illegal and/or corrupt is further aggravated when it is at the expense of the helpless citizenry who have no voice by which to articulate their grievances.

The Petitioners very respectfully state that as judicially affirmed by Your Lordships Court recently (in SC (FR) No. 503/2005, SCM 03rd May, 2007), there was an overriding duty imposed upon the 1st Respondent when she was functioning as Executive President and head of the Government and of the Cabinet and consequently the custodian of executive power, to exercise that power in trust for the people.

Wherein the purported exercise of such power, a benefit or advantage is wrongfully secured there is an entitlement in the public interest to seek a declaration from Your Lordships' Court as to the infringement of the fundamental right to equality before the law.

The 1st Respondent is the former Executive President of Sri Lanka whose actions in regard to the issue which forms the subject matter of this application before Your Lordships' Court (Together with the actions of the 5th and 6th Respondent as well as the actions of the 4th Respondent, being a limited liability company duly incorporated under the Companies Act of 1982 as amended, the shareholders of which included the 9th to 11th Respondents), which actions, individually and cumulatively, have resulted in the violation of the Petitioners' fundamental rights to equality and the equal protection of the law as is guaranteed and recognized in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution, in the manner as would be more fully disclosed in the averments hereinafter.

The 2nd, 3rd, 3A and 12th Respondents are statutory functionaries holding public office and the 7th Respondent is the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka whose actions at the relevant time have also been impugned in this application.

The 8th Respondent is cited in this application for the purposes of giving notice only and due to the necessity to compel certain documentation in his custody to be produced before Court for the better comprehension of the gravity for the corrupt transactions that forms the crux of this applications.

The 14th Respondent is the Chairman, the 15th Respondent is the Commission appointed to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption by virtue of Act 19 of 1994 and Act No. 20 of 1994 amending Bribery Act No. 38 of 1974 and Act No. 9 of 1980, and the 16th Respondent Director General of the Commission appointed to Investigate Corruption and Bribery, who are vested with the power to call for the files and investigate the impugned transaction and take appropriate steps on the impugned transaction as provided for in the Bribery Act No. 11 of 1954 (as amended), as the Bribery and Corruption Law.

The 13th Respondent is the Attorney General and has been made a Respondent as required by Rule 44 (1)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of 1990.

The Petitioners state that in or about 1984, then Minister of Lands, Hon. Gamini Dissanayaka in a Gazette Notification decided to acquire for a public purpose of "Urban Development" a large track of land (lots 1 to 33 depicted in Preliminary Survey Plan No. 6659, containing in extent ... Hectares) situated in Kalapaluwawa, Rajagiriya within the administrative jurisdiction of the Kaduwela Divisional Secretariat ostensibly for the public purpose of the Parliamentary Administrative Complex and for the purpose of water retention as a low lying area.

The Petitioners state that thereafter, the acquisition process was carried out and concluded by the relevant authorities at that time.

In proof annexed hereto marked P1a is the Section 7 Notice under the Land Acquisition Act noticing interested persons to make their claims for compensation, as published in gazette notification bearing No. 527/15 dated 14.10.1998 and marked P1b is the Certificate of Vesting issued by the Acquiring Officer - Divisional Secretary Kaduwela in terms of section 44 of the said Act, in handing over of possession of the acquired lands to the 3rd Respondent Urban Development Authority, and are pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

The amount of compensation granted to the individual land owners whose land were thus acquired was estimated as rupees 312/- per perch and the said landowners were compelled to accept the said payment despite their protests.

Annexed hereto marked P2a is the award of the Acquiring Officer as to compensation under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 28 of 1964 (as amended), and marked P2b is an appeal of a land owner (namely Mr. A. P. Piyasena of No. 549, Aggona, Angoda) dated 08/07/1999 addressed to the Deputy Minister of Finance G. L. Peiris pleading to intervene and redress the injustice caused to him in this regard who is the owner of an undivided portion of 120 perches identified under 13 on the list marked as P2a, and are pleaded as part and parcel of this application.

Despite the said acquisition being purportedly for the above public purpose, the said public purpose was resoundingly defeated when on 14th May, 1997, the 7th Respondent Board of Investment (which was the basis for the subsequent Cabinet Paper put up by the 1st Respondent as Minister of Finance) approved a proposal submitted by the 4th Respondent to establish an 18-hole Golf Course on 136 acres of State land belonging to the UDA.

The Petitioners state that in addition to the purported Golf Course Project the 4th Respondent investors had also proposed the construction of a park, football pitch, cricket pitch, and a hawker centre for the purpose of selling food items to the public tainting the project with a public purpose angle which dropped off by the way side as the project went on.

The Petitioners state that by Cabinet Memorandum dated 9th February, 1998 the 1st Respondent, in her capacity as the then Minister of Finance and Planning named the promoters of this project as Mr. J. Yangihara of Japan and the 9th to 11th Respondents namely, Mr. Shantha Wijesinghe, and Mr. and Mrs. Siva Selvaratnam of Sri Lanka.

Annexed hereto is a true copy of the said Cabinet Memorandum marked P3 and is pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

According to the said Memorandum, the promoters were to initially invest Rs. 100 Million in a project estimated to cost Rs. 510 Million.

The Petitioners verily believe that though the above stated Japanese investor, Mr. J. Yangihara was purportedly named as an investor in the said project, the said investor existed only on paper and/or he did not benefit from the said 'transaction'.

The Petitioners put the 1st Respondent and/or the 4th Respondent and/or the 9th to 11th Respondents to strict proof in respect of denial of this averment. The Petitioners further state that the said naming of the said Mr. J. Yangihara as an investor was part of an unscrupulous ruse adopted by the 1st Respondent to make the picture more attractive and to be able to justify the same on paper and obtain Cabinet approval by misleading them on an illegal and/or corrupt transaction as is detailed hereinafter.

The said Cabinet Memorandum (P3) referred to the "benefits of having an additional golf course in Colombo", and the 1st Respondent proposed to designate the project as a "Special Development Project" qualifying for concessionary terms of alienation in terms of provisions approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 8th October, 1997.

The concessionary terms of alienation as approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 8th October, 1997 refers to a maximum investment of Rs. 500 Million, 'excluding the value of the land'.

The said Cabinet Memorandum of the 1st Respondent detailed a 99 year lease period, imposed a nominal rent as referred to in detail in the said cabinet paper and stipulated that the land revert to the UDA if construction does not commence within six months.

The Petitioners state that on 11th March 1998 the Cabinet approval was granted in accordance with the aforesaid Cabinet Memorandum titled "Release of land on concessionary terms - Asia Pacific Golf Courses Ltd.," annexed hereto marked P3a is the said Cabinet approval as per the contents of the Cabinet paper marked P3 and is pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

The Petitioners state that thereafter ancillary procedural steps were taken by Ministries and Government authorities, in releasing 136 acres of land to the 4th Respondent Company and enabling the 4th Respondent Company to utilize the land varying the conditions as imposed in the original Cabinet paper marked P3 making the "project" more and more attractive to the "investors" for purposes other than for which the land were acquired, in that, annexed hereto marked P4(a) to (d)) respectively at the behest of the 1st Respondent if not for which the "Project" would have run in to so many snags: P4(a)) - is letter dated 27-04-1998 signed by the Director General of the BOI requesting the UDA to prepare and enter into a lease agreement with the 4th Respondent Company in respect of the said land, in the manner stipulated in the Cabinet Memorandum P3; P4(b) - is Cabinet memorandum dated 19-02-2000 submitted by the then Minister of Urban Development, Housing and Construction seeking approval to allocate 7.8 hectares of the said land to the Kaduwela Pradeshiya Sabha for the purpose of developing a public playground, as a free grant, this too was a further ploy in initially having the land released in favour of the Pradeshiya Sabha and subsequently to have it allocated to the 4th Respondent Company; P4(c) - is a further letter dated 26-02-2000 signed by the Director General of the BOI requesting the Minister of Urban Development to release further land to the 4th Respondent Company for the purpose of a cricket pitch.

P4(d) - is a further Cabinet memorandum dated 18-01-2001 submitted by the Minister of Urban Development seeking approval of the Cabinet to release further 84 acres of the land in question to the 4th Respondent Company free of charge on the purported premise of flood retention arrangement, and to permit the 4th Respondent Company to construct villas, apartments, resorts and cottage houses within the golf course site and to transfer the same to buyers upon the receipt of moneys as per the Government valuation, and also to revoke the approval granted to the Kaduwela Pradeshiya Sabha for the purpose of a public playground and to re-allocate the 19 acres of land already given to the Pradeshiya Sabha to the 14th Respondent, purportedly for the same purpose of developing a public playground, P4(e) - is a Cabinet Memorandum forwarded by the then Minister of Urban Development, Construction and Public Utilities inviting the Cabinet to approve the transfer of title of freehold areas held by the 4th Respondent Company to potential buyers of the villas, apartments, cottages and resorts built by the 4th Respondent on the Golf Course site, P4(f) - is the Cabinet approval dated 27-09-2001 permitting the transfer of title to potential buyers.

Documents marked P4(a) to P4(f) are pleaded as part and parcel hereof. The Petitioners state that thereafter an agreement was entered in to between the 7th Respondent and the 4th Respondent and or the 9th to 11th Respondents.

The Petitioners state that subsequently, the 4th Respondent and/or the 9th to 11th Respondents sold the shareholdings in the said company which was simply a shell Company which had no tangible assets with no investment being made which only had a potential value being enriched with the project that has been approved by the 1st respondent and at her behest by several other Ministers and Government agencies, to the 6th Respondent at an undisclosed colossal price with no further approval from the statutory authorities.

The 6th Respondent who was well aware of the status of the 4th respondent thereafter invested in the said 4th Respondent company and built a golf course on the said property and ignoring the Public utilities as contained in the Cabinet Paper P3 being well aware of the blessings of the 1st respondent failed to put up any public utility areas as described in P3 which were based on the Project proposal that was submitted the BOI.

The project was to be on the same property as approved by the Cabinet of Ministers as per Paper marked P3, (which was on the same property that was originally acquired in 1984 from individual land owners, who were paid only a absurd sum of rupees 312/= per perch as above) purportedly for a Public purpose consequent to the payment of a sum exceeding SLR million to the original shareholders of the 4th Respondent Company, namely the 9th to 11th Respondents.

The said Golf Course is now commonly referred to and is known as the Waters Edge Golf and Recreation Club, situated at Battaramulla near the Parliament Complex at Sri Jayawardhanapura, Kotte which has been exclusively reserved for use by a private membership amongst the "elite" keeping the members of public away from the project, completely in contravention of the original project proposal that was submitted to the BOI.

The Petitioners state that the 4th Respondent thereafter sold some freehold blocks of the said land to private individuals at SLR 600,000 or more, per perch. Approximately 13 1/2 acres were unlawfully alienated in this manner notwithstanding the fact that such alienation was illegal and contrary to the advice of the Hon. Attorney General regarding which the 1st to 3rd Respondents and/or the 7th Respondent and or 12th Respondent made no effort to prevent. Annexed hereto marked P5 is the said advice of the Hon. Attorney General dated 09-11-1993 and is pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

The Petitioners state that these actions led to tremendous public outcry at that time as is ex facie evidenced by newspaper articles which are annexed here to marked as P5(a) to P5(g) and pleaded as part and parcel hereof. The affected original landowners also preferred applications to the Court of Appeal, a copy of one such petition in this regard is annexed hereto marked P5(h) and is pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

The Petitioners annex further documents marked as P5(i) to P5(q) relating to the constant appeals made to the relevant authorities in this regard by the above stated landowner Mr. A.P. Piyasena (also referred to as Mr. Palitha Amerasinghe) of No. 549/1, Aggona, Angoda which documents also testify to an implicit acknowledgement by the Presidential Secretariat that the said acquired land had not been used for a public purpose, and further, that divesting of the said land is under consideration.

The Petitioners very respectfully pray that Your Lordships Court be pleased to call upon the 8th Respondent to place before Court, all files and documents in his possession pertaining to the said transaction which would further enable the exact nature of the fraud and/or corrupt deal engaged by the 1st Respondent in collaboration with the 4th and 5th Respondents and/or the 9th to 11th Respondents which said corrupt and/or illegal transaction was facilitated by the inaction of the 2nd, 3rd Respondents and / or 7th Respondent and/ or 12th Respondent which is the subject matter of his application.

The Petitioners respectfully submitted that the 1st Respondent violated the law by the following actions which individually and/ or cumulatively amount to abuse of power, viz: a) Releasing State lands acquired for a "public purpose" under the Land Acquisition Act and already vested in the 3rd Respondent, to the 4th Respondent to construct a private golf course and thereafter given to the 6th Respondent, in which transaction the 5th Respondent and this other fellow directors all of whom cumulatively or individually with no investment being made in the project were allowed to be benefited financially to the tune of Approximately Rs. 150 Million minimum; b) Misleading the then Cabinet of Ministers by stating that the four promoters constituting the 4th Respondent were prepared to invest up to Rs. 100 Million in a project that had been estimated to cost Rs. 510 Million and making them believe that this project was a reality when in fact the purpose of setting up the company was only for the purpose creating a shell company with no asset or investment in it for the purpose of robbing private land that has been acquired apparently for a public purpose; c) Misleading the Cabinet of Ministers into believing that a Japanese investor was bringing in funds to the country; and manipulating her Cabinet colleagues to submit several Cabinet papers in contravention of the original Cabinet paper submitted by her marked P3 to facilitate the outright transfer of approximately 84 acres of land at a price of approximately Rs. 600,000/= or more per perch.

d) Misleading the Cabinet of Ministers that the "project" as set out in the Cabinet paper marked P3 would create a Park, Foot Ball pitch, Cricket pitch and a Hawker center for the purpose of selling food items which will be made available to the Public and making the Cabinet of Ministers believe that this project is for the benefit of the Public.

Whereas the final outcome is that non of the aforesaid public areas have been constructed by the 4th - 6th and the 9th - 11th Respondents instead only a Golf Course had been constructed along with a 5 Star Restaurant, Pool and a Gymnasium exclusively for the benefit of a private membership Club which will cost a member of public approximately Rs. 250,000/= to join. e) Breached the trust reposed in the 1st Respondent by the people of this Country in electing her as the Executive President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, by robbing the land from the original land owners agedly for a public purpose at a cost of Rs. 312 per perch and sugar coating the project on the basis that the project was going to benefit the Public with the creation of a Park, Foot Ball pitch, Cricket pitch and a Hawker center for the purpose of selling food items which will be made available to the public and making the Cabinet of Ministers believe that this project is for the benefit of the Public and divesting the same to a private company purely for the purpose of a commercial venture with no return to the State or the original land owners whose lands were plundered by the 1st Respondent through her executive cton. f) Ensuring that the Government's Chief Valuer valued the said land at Rs. 300 Million, terming the said project as a "Special Development Project", qualifying for concessionary terms of alleviation and obtaining BOI (Board of Investment) approval for it, all in order to obtain a pecuniary benefit or atleast a social benefit to herself and in favour of the 5th Respondent, being as aforesaid, a close friend of the said 1st Respondent.

The said close affinity is evidenced inter alia by the Bank of Ceylon, an institution coming directly under the 1st Respondent as Minister of Finance at the time, permitting the 5th Respondent and his wife to obtain a loan for the amount of approximately SLR 40 million for the purpose of settling a previous loan obtained by the said 5th Respondent from the State Bank of India in clear violation of the usual banking procedure adopted by the Bank of Ceylon which does not usually permit the Bank to process and/or approve any loan that is for the purpose of settling a loan from another bank and or granting working capital loans.

The said loan was granted by special dispensation of the Ministry of Finance (under the 1st respondent at that time). In proof annexed hereto marked P 6(a) to P6(d) respectively is letter dated 16.02.2007 from the Country Manager, London Branch, Bank of Ceylon stating the amounts of loan received by the 5th respondent and his wife etc, the loan application tendered by the 5th respondent submitting that the repayment would be from the proceeds, and the approval of the requested facility by the Bank and are pleaded as part and parcel hereof: g) Nullifying the purpose for which the property was originally acquired, the 'public purpose' which at the time, was said to be the expansion of the new Parliamentary complex / construction of government buildings and quarters for public servants (including Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament, judges senior government officials and members of the armed services) in the new administrative capital of Sri Jayawardenepura as well as for water retention purposes in the area; h) Allowing the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents to make unconscionable profits who has made no effort or any investment in the said 'project' and/or the 9th to 11th respondents from the said transaction to the detriment of the original landowners and to the detriment of the public purse and defeating the objects for which property is acquired from private owners for a 'public purpose' and thus such land becoming public property and such land be alienated through the UDA for private use with commercial benefit; The petitioners respectfully submit that the above detailed actions of the 1st respondent in collaboration with the 4th and 5th respondents and as facilitated by the inaction of the 3rd respondent and/or the 7th respondent and/or the 12 respondent exemplify the conferment of a wrongful or unlawful benefit or advantage on the said Respondents as well as on the 6th respondent and a direct misuse of executive power by the 1st respondent by way of mis-appropriation of public property.

The 1st respondent as head of the Cabinet of Ministers was the custodian of public property and public funds. The property and funds had to be dealt with according to law for the benefit of the people but as detailed above in this particular instance, was manifestly violated for personal advantage of the said respondents.

The petitioners state that the 14th to the 16th respondents are vested with the power to inquire into allegations of Bribery and Corruption and have failed to investigate this biggest ever corrupt land deal which should have been investigated and report facts to the relevant court and initiate proceedings against the 5th and 6th respondents and 9th to 11th respondents in the High Court of Colombo.

The 1st respondent was the Chief Executive of the State at the relevant time and therefore the said infringement of fundamental rights is by executive or administrative action. The petitioners also state that the aforesaid acts of the 2nd to 15th respondents other than those of the Hon. Attorney General constitutes administrative and executive action as is envisaged under Article 126 of the Constitution.

The petitioners state that they have not previously invoked the jurisdiction of Your Lordships Court in respect of this matter.

Wherefore, the petitioners very respectfully pray that court be pleased to: Grant leave to proceed with this application in the first instance; Make order declaring that the 1st respondent had acted in violation of Article 12 (1) of the Constitution of the Socialist Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka and thereby violated the Oath she has taken to uphold the Constitution at the time of her assumption of duties as the Executive President of Sri Lanka.

Issue an interim order, directing that the 8th Respondent (Commissioner General of Inland Revenue) place before the Court, all files and documents in the custody of the Inland Revenue Department pertaining to the said transactions which would further enable the exact nature of the fraud and/or corrupt deal engaged in collaboration by the 1st Respondent with the 4th and 5th respondents and/or the 9th to 11th Respondents which resulted in an unlawful benefit/advantage being conferred upon the said respondents as well as the 6th respondent which unlawful and/illegal and/or corrupt transaction is the subject matter of this application.

Issue an interim order, directing that the 8th respondent (Commissioner General of Inland Revenue) place before court, income tax files bearing file Nos. 432330095 and 412292086, respectively of the 9th and 10th respondents and an extracted report from the files pertaining to 4th to 6th and 11th respondents revealing the profiteering that has been committed by the aforesaid respondents in order to further examine the exact extent of the fraud and/or corrupt deal engaged in collaboration by the 1st respondent with the 4th and 5th respondents and/or the 9th to 11th respondents which resulted in an unlawful benefit/advantage being conferred upon the said respondents as well as the 6th respondent which unlawful and/illegal and/or corrupt transaction is the subject matter of this application.

Issue an interim order, directing that the 3rd respondent (Urban Development Authority) place before court, all files documents in the custody of the Urban Development Authority pertaining to the particular land and the relevant Cabinet Papers to this transaction which would further enable the exact nature of the fraud and/or corrupt deal engaged in collaboration by the 1st respondent with the 4th and 5th respondents and/or the 9th to 11th respondents which resulted in an unlawful benefit/advantage being conferred upon the said respondents as well as the 6th respondent which unlawful and/illegal and/or corrupt transaction is the subject matter of this application.

Issue an interim order directing that the 7th respondent (Board of Investment of Sri Lanka) to place before court the original project proposal of the 4th respondent, submitted on behalf of 9th to 11th respondents seeking approval for the said investment project in order to further examine the exact nature of the fraud and/or corrupt deal engaged in collaboration by the 1st respondent with the 4th and 5th respondents and/or the 9th to 11th respondents which resulted in an unlawful benefit/advantage being conferred upon the said respondents as well as the 6th respondent which unlawful and/illegal and/or corrupt transaction is the subject matter of this application.

Declare the said unlawful and/illegal and/or corrupt transaction pertaining to alienation of State lands purportedly acquired for a "public purpose" under the Land Acquisition Act to the 4th respondent to construct a private golf course the control of which was thereafter sold in return to the 6th respondent (and portions of which land were also sold at great profit to private individuals), resulted in an exercise of abuse of power and/or corruption on the part of the 1st respondent while functioning as the Executive President of Sri Lanka and consequently amounted to the petitioners' rights in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution being violated, which said violation unlawfully benefited the 4th and 5th respondents and/or the 6th respondent and/or the 9th to 11th respondents as facilitated by the inaction of the 3rd respondent and/or the 7th respondent and/or the 12th respondent and declare any one or all of the respondents liable in that context for the violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

Direct the 14th to 16th respondent to investigate and institute necessary legal action in terms of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act 19 of 1994, and Act No. 20 of 1994 amending Bribery Act No. 38 of 1974 and Act No. 9 of 1980 against the 1st respondent with regard to the exercise of abuse of power and/or corruption committed by Bank of Ceylon in contravention of the accepted norms and banking practices in respect of the 5th respondent.

Make order for compensation against the 1st and the 5th respondents to pay the State in a sum of Rs. 100 million each. Make order as to compensation due to the petitioners in the public interest in respect of the above violation of the petitioners fundamental rights.

Make order confiscating the money thus unlawfully accrued to the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents and/or the 9th to 11th respondents as result of the said illegal and/or corrupt transaction and declare such moneys to be paid back to the State; Order costs; and Order such other and further relief as to Your Lordships' Court shall seem meet.