On 28.05.2021 the case was filed in the Supreme court of Sri Lanka against the illegal development activities which are ongoing on the “ Green Belt” at Panadura.This case concerns the protection and preservation of a 10-acre coastal forest strip in Bentota, Sri Lanka, commonly known as the “Green Belt,” located between the beach and the railway line, extending from the southern boundary of Hotel Vivanta by Taj to the Athuruvella railway crossing in Warahena. This area is part of the coastal zone under the Coastal Conservation Act No. 57 of 1981 and is categorized as “Other State Forests” under the Forest Ordinance No. 16 of 1907.

The Green Belt provides multiple ecological, social, and economic benefits, including protection against coastal hazards (cyclones, storms, tsunamis), conservation of biodiversity (mangroves, pandanus, endemic flora and fauna, nesting grounds for endangered sea turtles), support for local livelihoods, and recreational and aesthetic value. The land was originally privately owned and acquired by the State in 1967 for the “Bentota Tourist Development Project,” with assurances that it would remain a protected green reservation for public benefit.

Scientific assessments, including a 2003 NARA report, have emphasized the environmental importance of maintaining this greenbelt. The Green Belt also played a critical role in mitigating the impact of the 2004 tsunami, highlighting the protective function of coastal vegetation. National policies and guidelines, including the Coastal Resource Management Plan (2018) and the National Policy on Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Mangrove Ecosystems (2020), support the conservation of such areas.

Petitioners allege that in 2021, unauthorized surveys and preparatory actions were conducted in the Green Belt, signaling potential development activities, specifically a proposed “Bentota Beach Resort,” contrary to prior assurances, environmental laws, policies, and the public trust doctrine. These actions allegedly violate the petitioners’ and the public’s fundamental rights under Articles 12(1), 14(1)(g), and 14(1)(h) of the Constitution, including rights to equality, freedom of movement, and protection from arbitrary action.

The petition asserts that any development on the Green Belt would contravene environmental and coastal protection laws, including the Coastal Conservation Act, Forest Ordinance, National Environmental Act, and the Coastal Zone and Coastal Resource Management Plan (CZCRM-Plan). Such development would also violate the public trust doctrine and principles of intergenerational equity, threaten biodiversity, undermine coastal resilience, and jeopardize the livelihoods of local communities. Furthermore, it would breach the legitimate expectations of the original landowners, the petitioners, and the general public. In light of these concerns, the petitioners seek a declaration that their fundamental rights are at risk of being violated and request the prohibition of any commercial or development activity on the Green Belt. They also seek orders directing the respondents to protect, preserve, and manage the Green Belt for the benefit of current and future generations, recognition of the Green Belt as a protected area under relevant laws and policies, and any additional relief deemed just and equitable by the Court.The case was dismissed based on the Respondents’ undertakings to implement the actions outlined in the Coastal Management Plan.