The Trillion-Rupee Question: Who Really Owns Sri Lanka’s State Land?

Colombo Fire Investigative Desk

A potentially explosive question is emerging over the ownership and control of government land and other state assets in Sri Lanka: how much public property has been transferred, occupied, leased, acquired or otherwise placed under the control of politicians, their relatives, private businesses and commercial interests over several decades?

A senior retired government surveyor, who spent years working with state land records, has raised serious concerns with Colombo Fire about what he describes as a potentially extensive pattern of questionable transfers and ownership arrangements involving government land.

According to the retired official, the issue may involve properties with a combined value running into hundreds of billions of rupees—and potentially approaching the trillion-rupee range if all disputed state land, commercial properties, warehouses and associated assets are properly identified and valued.

These claims have not yet been independently established by Colombo Fire. But if even a fraction of the alleged transactions can be substantiated through land registries, survey plans, deeds, leases, Cabinet decisions, valuation reports and company records, the implications for Sri Lanka's public finances could be enormous.

The central question is therefore straightforward:

Who owns Sri Lanka's land—and who had the legal authority to transfer it?

A problem stretching across governments

The retired surveyor claims that questionable transactions did not belong exclusively to one administration.

According to his account, land-related transactions requiring investigation occurred over a prolonged period, beginning around 1977 and continuing through subsequent administrations, including the period up to 2023.

That allegation, if supported by documentary evidence, would make this far more than a political dispute involving one government or one political party.

It would point instead to a systemic weakness in the management of state property.

Government land is not simply another commodity. It belongs to the public.

Where state property is transferred or otherwise disposed of without lawful authority, proper valuation, competitive procedures or the necessary approvals, the ultimate economic loss is borne by taxpayers.

The retired surveyor has therefore called on the present National People's Power (NPP) administration to undertake a comprehensive investigation.

His proposal is not simply for another political commission.

He is calling for the authorities to reconstruct the ownership history of disputed properties from the original state records through to their present ownership.

From government land to private hands

One of the most important allegations concerns the possibility that state land may have moved through multiple layers of ownership.

A property originally recorded as government land could, for example, subsequently appear under an individual, a family member, a private company or another corporate vehicle.

Such transactions require careful examination because the identity of the current registered owner does not, by itself, establish whether the original transfer was lawful.

Investigators would need to establish:

• Who originally owned the land?
• Under which statute or regulation was it released?
• Who authorised the transaction?
• Was the land sold, leased, transferred or otherwise disposed of?
• Was the property properly surveyed?
• Was it independently valued?
• Was the correct consideration paid?
• Was the transaction approved by the competent authority?
• Did the recipient have a political, family or commercial connection to the decision-makers?
• Was the property subsequently transferred to another individual or company?
• Did a listed company eventually acquire an interest in the property?
• Was the transaction properly disclosed in corporate accounts and regulatory filings?

Those questions are particularly important where land has subsequently become part of commercial operations.

The listed-company question

The retired surveyor has also raised concerns that some properties may have ultimately become associated with businesses, warehouses and even listed companies.

That allegation deserves particularly careful scrutiny.

A listed company is subject to corporate, accounting and securities-market obligations. If a company acquired state property, investigators would need to establish the precise chain of title and determine whether the acquisition was conducted at arm's length and in accordance with the law.

The investigation should not stop merely because the present owner is a company.

The crucial question is how the company obtained the asset in the first place.

A legitimate acquisition should be capable of being demonstrated through documents.

The 1977–2023 paper trail

The proposed investigation would necessarily involve records extending over decades.

That may include:

Survey Department records.

Land Registry deeds and registrations.

Divisional Secretariat records.

Land Commissioner General's Department files.

Government valuations.

Cabinet memoranda and decisions.

Provincial and local-authority records.

Port and other state-agency records.

Company Registry documents.

Audited corporate accounts.

Lease agreements and permits.

Court records.

The objective should be to construct a digital chain-of-title database for every property under investigation.

If a parcel was originally state-owned and subsequently moved into private ownership, the complete sequence should be visible.

That would make it considerably harder for politically connected individuals or companies to hide questionable transactions behind layers of subsequent transfers.

The “snake bite” episode

The retired official has also referred to a former politician who held the portfolio of Ports and Shipping Minister and who, according to the allegation, avoided or delayed a Bribery Commission-related investigation after reportedly claiming that he had been bitten by a snake.

That particular allegation should itself be checked against official records, including the relevant investigation files, statements and court or Commission documents.

More importantly, the retired surveyor alleges that the former minister has significant interests in government land.

If such claims exist, they should not be treated as proof of wrongdoing.

They should instead trigger a lawful asset and property audit.

The appropriate question for investigators is not whether somebody is politically popular or unpopular.

It is whether a public asset was lawfully acquired.

The NPP's opportunity

The NPP government has an opportunity to address this issue in a manner that goes beyond partisan politics.

Sri Lanka has repeatedly experienced investigations into alleged corruption that generated headlines but failed to produce a comprehensive reconstruction of how public assets moved into private hands.

The government could establish a specialised State Land and Public Assets Audit Unit, bringing together independent surveyors, forensic accountants, land-law specialists, investigators and officials from the relevant state institutions.

The mandate should be transparent.

Every allegation should be tested against primary documents.

Where ownership is legitimate, the investigation should say so.

Where an administrative error occurred, it should be identified.

Where a transaction breached the law, the responsible parties should face the appropriate legal process.

And where state property was unlawfully acquired, the government should pursue recovery through the courts and other lawful mechanisms.

No political exceptions

There must also be no distinction between politicians from different parties.

If questionable transactions occurred under governments led by different political groups, all administrations must be examined under the same standard.

The investigation should not become an instrument for targeting yesterday's political opponents while ignoring allies or influential business interests.

That would simply reproduce the problem.

The principle should be:

Public land belongs to the public.

No minister, MP, political family, businessman or corporation should receive special treatment when questions arise concerning state assets.

A trillion-rupee forensic audit?

The most dramatic figure in the allegations is the suggestion that the total value of potentially affected government properties could approach Rs. 1 trillion.

That figure must not be presented as an established loss without a property-by-property valuation.

But it is precisely because the potential figure is so large that the allegations deserve serious examination.

Sri Lanka has undergone economic crisis, sovereign default, debt restructuring and severe fiscal pressure.

At a time when the government is asking citizens to accept taxation, expenditure controls and economic reforms, the question of whether valuable public assets were improperly transferred cannot simply be dismissed.

If billions—or potentially hundreds of billions—of rupees worth of public property have been lost through unlawful or irregular transactions, recovering those assets could have an economic significance far beyond another corruption headline.

The documents will decide

Ultimately, this controversy cannot be settled by political speeches.

It cannot be settled by accusations on television.

And it cannot be settled by the reputation of the individuals involved.

The documents must decide.

The NPP government should therefore consider publishing a clear framework for a national audit of disputed state land and public property.

The investigation should begin with the records.

Follow the survey plan.

Follow the deed.

Follow the valuation.

Follow the approval.

Follow the money.

Follow the subsequent transfers.

And finally, identify the person or company that ultimately benefited.

If the transactions were lawful, the records will demonstrate it.

If they were not, Sri Lankan taxpayers deserve to know who took public property, how it happened, who authorised it, and whether the property can be recovered.

The retired government surveyor has put the question on the table.

Now the responsibility rests with the authorities.

The land belongs to the people of Sri Lanka. The public has a right to know where it went.