The Hon. K.D. Lal Kantha - Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, given my limited time, let me be brief. This is a very important debate and motion. Hon. Ajith P. Perera has presented four proposals. In principle, we agree with all four—no issue. The deed given under the former President was “Urumaya.” There are substantive differences between that and the “Gihimikama” deed we are now issuing, which are apparent from the comparative report. Two of our Hon. Members here are lawyers; I too have consulted legal expertise. The report clearly shows changes from the previous scheme.

¶ 02 One change is that previously, when applying for a deed, the applicant handed the existing permit to the Divisional Secretary without obtaining the consent of other household members residing on the land. If the father applies, but there is a daughter, a son, a spouse—other family members—their consent should be obtained. In Sri Lanka, family remains the basic economic unit. While in some European countries an individual may have sufficient economic independence, here decisions often hinge within the family unit. Therefore, we decided that, in issuing these deeds, family consent is required. For that reason, the Urumaya deed issuance was stopped. Also, the earlier process, based on submitting documents, risked further fragmentation of land into very small parcels. We decided to stop that. In that context, the issue raised by Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara does not arise. If a recipient sells the land, that is not a problem; even if all sell, that is not, per se, an issue. The deed facilitates proper market transfer; that is foundational. The problem is unnecessary micro-parcellation. Therefore, we changed that, and decided to issue the deed under the name “Gihimikama.”

¶ 03 The content is completely different from “Urumaya.” Under prevailing regulations, land fragmentation is restricted. Now, when applying, we also obtain a letter of consent from other family members. Thus the content is different, more reasonable and fair.

¶ 04 Hon. Ajith P. Perera raised a core point that the circular, when issued, deviated from the Cabinet decision. I will look into that; there is no issue with verifying. A circular must conform to the Cabinet decision.

¶ 05 Hon. Member, after you raised the matter, I inquired from the Land Commissioner General. He pointed to paragraph 8(2) of the Committee Report—please refer to it—which states “permits issued under the Land Development Ordinance.” The programme was approved on 21.07.2025, and the basis considered was “permits issued by that date.” Therefore, the “Gihimikama” deed would not apply to permits issued after 21.07.2025. You alleged that the circular violated the Cabinet decision. The Land Commissioner General clarified that “issued” refers to those extant at the time of approval—those are eligible. The intent is to expedite deeds for those long waiting without deeds, whereas for permits granted after 21.07.2025, some additional time is acceptable; and, if necessary, Cabinet can take a fresh decision to amend that.

¶ 06 The reasonable position to accept is that many people have waited a long time without deeds.

¶ 07 You are correct that about 80% of land remains state-owned, and deeds have not been granted. We aim to grant them. Fundamentally, these two deed types are not the same. I even noted a Sunday newspaper headline claiming “Anura’s ‘Himakama’ wrapped over Ranil’s ‘Urumaya’”—that is wrong. It’s a widely read, respected Sunday paper among the urban middle class, but that particular report was entirely incorrect.

¶ 08 Next, I said we agree with these proposals. If there is any error in the circular, we will certainly correct it. When we assumed office, there were lands approved by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe; that is not a problem. There are signed approvals, and even the Committee Report says to issue those signed approvals. We will issue them; the post–21.07.2025 issuance process is functioning.