A scheduled land survey in the Thaiyiddy area of Valikamam North in Sri Lanka’s Jaffna District has triggered renewed confusion and concern among local landowners, who say they remain uncertain about the true purpose of the exercise. The survey, expected to take place today, concerns private lands surrounding the Thaiyiddy Tissa Vihara, an area that has long been associated with contested land acquisition and prolonged disputes over ownership and restitution. While authorities insist the process is intended to facilitate the formal release of land back to rightful owners, affected families argue that the lack of clear communication has once again placed them in a state of anxiety and mistrust.
Landowners say they were not provided with formal written notification regarding the survey as of yesterday evening, despite the significant implications it carries for property they claim was previously seized for the construction of the religious site. This absence of official documentation has intensified frustration among residents who have been engaged for years in protests and legal efforts aimed at reclaiming their lands. Many of them describe the situation as another example of procedural uncertainty, where decisions affecting long-disputed properties are announced without adequate consultation or transparency, leaving them unsure whether to cooperate or resist.
In response to growing concerns, Jaffna District Secretary A. Sivabalasundaran clarified the government’s position following a meeting held on the 11th, which included former Minister Douglas Devananda, district officials, and representatives of the affected landowners. According to the District Secretary, the survey is a necessary administrative step intended solely to identify and demarcate lands for release. He stated that 17 landowners had already consented during the meeting to the return of their properties, and that the surveying process would help formally finalize the transfer of approximately 14 acres of land back to public ownership and, ultimately, to the original owners.
Authorities have emphasized that the exercise carries no hidden intention beyond legal clarification and demarcation. The District Secretary reiterated that the purpose of the survey is strictly to facilitate the release process, ensuring that land boundaries are properly recorded before restitution. Officials maintain that such technical procedures are essential in resolving longstanding administrative ambiguities and in preventing future disputes over boundaries or ownership rights. From the government’s perspective, the survey represents a procedural step forward in addressing a complex issue that has persisted for years in the region.
However, landowners remain unconvinced, pointing to a history of unresolved grievances and inconsistent administrative actions in similar cases. Their central demand is for a written guarantee from the District Secretary explicitly confirming that the survey will be used only to release the land and not to support any permanent state acquisition or alternative use. They argue that verbal assurances alone are insufficient given past experiences, where land-related promises were not always followed by immediate or transparent implementation. This skepticism has been further reinforced by the perception that previous land releases in other contexts did not require such surveys, raising questions about why a different procedure is now being introduced.
