COLOMBO — An anti-corruption organisation has demanded an investigation into the 2010–2011 transfer of prime State-owned land at Galle Face, questioning the speed of the first deed, Cabinet approval, property valuations and the absence of competitive bidding.
An anti-corruption organisation has lodged a formal complaint with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), requesting an investigation into the transfer of approximately 10 acres of prime State-owned land at Galle Face to a Shangri-La-related company during the administration of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
The complaint, submitted on October 29, 2026, by Citizens’ Power Against Bribery, Corruption and Waste, calls for an examination of transactions reportedly valued at a combined Rs. 13,749 million, or Rs. 13.749 billion.
Its president, Jamuni Kamantha Thushara, alleges that the transfers were conducted without complying with the procedures governing the disposal of State property.
The organisation has questioned the speed with which documentation for the first transaction was completed, the availability of Cabinet approval and official valuation reports, and the decision to transfer the property without an open tender or public auction.
The complaint also alleges that powers associated with the Crown Lands Ordinance were misused to facilitate the transfers.
These allegations have not been established by a court or an independent investigation.
Historical government statements defended the land transaction as a lawful foreign investment arrangement, while official parliamentary records confirm that agreements involving the Board of Investment and Shangri-La Hotel Lanka (Private) Limited were subsequently concluded.
The renewed complaint therefore places the original approval, valuation and transfer records at the centre of the inquiry being sought.
Two Land Transfers Worth Rs. 13.749 Billion
According to the complaint, the purchasing company was registered with the Registrar of Companies on November 19, 2010, shortly before the first transfer.
The company is identified in the supplied material as Shangri-La Golf Face Lanka (Private) Limited, registration number PV 75660, with Mohammed Sajjad Mavsoom named as a director.
Separate official parliamentary records identify the project company as Shangri-La Hotel Lanka (Private) Limited and name Mohomad Sajjad Mawzoon among its directors.
The variation in company names and transliteration should be reconciled against the original company registration and deed records.
The complaint identifies two transactions:
– First land parcel: Lot 01 of Survey Plan No. 9132, measuring 2.4361 hectares, was transferred through Deed No. 4/10/33433 dated December 29, 2010. The deed was reportedly executed by then Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga. The recorded consideration was US$75 million, equivalent to approximately Rs. 8,250 million at the time.
– Second land parcel: Lot 02 of the same survey, measuring 1.6108 hectares, was transferred on March 15, 2011, for approximately Rs. 5,499 million, equivalent in contemporary reporting to US$50 million.
Together, the two parcels measured approximately 4.0469 hectares, described in the complaint as 10 acres and 11 perches.
Their combined transaction value was approximately US$125 million, or Rs. 13,749 million using the rupee values quoted for the respective transactions.
The financial details were publicly reported in November 2011, when then Minister of Land and Land Development Janaka Bandara Tennakoon provided information about the transfers in Parliament.
The existence and reported financial value of the transactions are therefore supported by historical reporting. Whether the procedures used to complete them were legally defective remains a separate question.
Three-Day Deed Process Comes Under Scrutiny
One of the complaint’s central concerns is the short interval between the preparation of the survey plan and the registration of the first land transfer.
The organisation identifies the following sequence:
- December 27, 2010: The survey plan covering the relevant land was prepared.
- December 28, 2010: The land transfer deed was reportedly drawn up.
- December 29, 2010: The transaction was registered.
The complainants argue that completing these steps within three days warrants scrutiny because procedures involving State land are ordinarily subject to multiple administrative and legal requirements.
They have questioned whether the transaction received unusually favourable treatment and whether all necessary approvals had been secured beforehand.
The speed of the final documentary process, however, does not necessarily establish that the entire investment approval or land valuation exercise occurred within those three days.
Contemporary reporting shows that discussions about the proposed Shangri-La investment were underway before the deed was executed.
On December 16, 2010, government representatives publicly discussed a proposed US$500 million hotel investment.
The Board of Investment was also reported to have approved the Shangri-La project on December 28, 2010.
These developments indicate that aspects of the project had been considered before the registration date cited in the complaint.
Investigators would need to establish when the Government first approved the proposed disposal, when the property was surveyed and valued, and whether the deed was executed in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.
Five Alleged Irregularities Identified by Complainants
Citizens’ Power Against Bribery, Corruption and Waste has identified five principal grounds for requesting an investigation.
1. Alleged breach of the Crown Lands Ordinance: The organisation claims that the transfers failed to comply with the procedures governing the disposal of State property under the legal framework cited in the deeds.
2. Unusually rapid documentation: The complaint questions the three-day sequence between the preparation of the survey, drafting of the deed and registration of the first transfer.
3. Disputed Cabinet approval: The organisation alleges that the necessary Cabinet approval cannot be established from the records available to it.
4. Questions about government valuations: The complainants seek confirmation that the prices were determined using proper valuations from the Government Valuation Department.
5. Absence of competitive bidding: The complaint argues that the property was transferred to a selected investor without an open tender or public auction.
These allegations concern the legality, transparency and value-for-money considerations surrounding the transaction.
They do not, individually or collectively, establish corruption without further examination of the governing law, official approvals and underlying evidence.
Cabinet Approval Allegation Conflicts With Historical Government Statements
The claim that Cabinet approval was absent requires particular attention because it conflicts with statements made publicly during the original investment period.
In 2011, government representatives defended the Shangri-La transaction and said that the transfer had been carried out under the applicable legal framework.
Contemporary accounts also reported officials asserting that Cabinet approval and a government valuation had been obtained.
Then Deputy Economic Development Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena publicly defended the transaction, describing the company’s registration in Sri Lanka and the investment commitments associated with the development.
The Government also maintained that the project would introduce substantial foreign investment and contribute to tourism infrastructure.
Those statements do not conclusively demonstrate that every required approval was valid.
They do establish, however, that the question of Cabinet authorisation cannot be resolved merely by asserting that approval did not exist.
A proper investigation would need to locate the original Cabinet memoranda, decisions, valuation reports and correspondence authorising the transaction.
If approvals were issued, investigators would need to examine whether they covered the specific land parcels, prices and contractual arrangements ultimately implemented.
If required approvals were absent, the legal consequences would depend on the statutory provisions and circumstances governing the transfers.
Parliamentary Records Confirm Shangri-La Project Agreements
The transaction also appears in official parliamentary records.
In response to parliamentary question No. 0177/2018, the Government identified agreements between the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka and Shangri-La Hotel Lanka (Private) Limited.
The answer listed Agreement No. 228 dated February 7, 2011, and Supplementary Agreement No. 24 dated April 1, 2015.
It identified the total land extent as 4.0469 hectares and stated that the property was transferred by way of a State grant under Section 23(2) of the Crown Lands Ordinance.
Those records are relevant because they provide an official documentary trail beyond the latest complaint.
They also highlight the need to distinguish the initial land-transfer deeds from later investment and supplementary agreements.
The existence of Board of Investment agreements does not automatically establish that the underlying transfer complied with every legal requirement.
Equally, a complaint alleging irregularity does not invalidate registered deeds or subsequent agreements without the appropriate legal findings.
The original documents will be essential to determining whether the Government acted within its statutory authority.
Crown Lands Ordinance Powers Under Examination
The complainants have alleged that powers vested in the President under the Crown Lands Ordinance were used improperly to transfer valuable State property to a favoured investor.
The relevant provision, Section 23(2), concerns the authentication of instruments required to be signed under the Ordinance.
The broader authority for the sale, lease and other disposition of State land is addressed in other provisions of the legislation.
The precise legal basis of the transaction must therefore be assessed by examining the complete statutory framework rather than treating Section 23(2) alone as the source of all substantive powers to dispose of land.
The role of the Presidential Secretary in executing the deed, the authority under which the document was signed and the requirements for registration would all need to be considered.
The complaint calls for accountability if investigators establish that the powers were misused.
At present, however, no finding has been identified establishing that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Lalith Weeratunga or the purchasing company committed an offence in relation to the specific transactions described.
Complaint Seeks Legal Action and Recovery of Land
The organisation has asked CIABOC to conduct an independent investigation into the land transfers and the circumstances in which the relevant approvals were obtained.
Its request extends to examining the conduct of public officials and other parties involved in the transactions.
Should wrongdoing be established, the complainants want legal action taken against those responsible.
They have also requested measures to recover the property for the State if the transfers are found to have been unlawful.
Such recovery would not necessarily follow automatically from an investigative finding.
The feasibility of cancelling or reversing the transactions would depend on the applicable law, the validity of the original conveyances, subsequent contractual rights and any judicial proceedings required.
The latest complaint nevertheless revives scrutiny of one of Colombo’s most prominent post-war foreign investment projects.
The central issue now is whether the relevant authorities will obtain and examine the original land deeds, survey plans, Cabinet decisions, valuation reports and investment agreements.
Those records, rather than the speed of the transaction alone, will determine whether the reported irregularities disclose breaches of the law or substantiate the allegations of corruption.
