Sri Lanka's The Sunday Island newspaper quoting a public notice said the panel wahzas made up of the Government Valuer, former chief valuer P W Senaratne and a third member, Sunil Fernando.

"Such compensation shall be payable to reflect the value of the shares held by each shareholder in affected enterprises or to reflect the value of an under-utilized asset based on its ownership by one or more of the owners," the report said.

Two listed companies, Hotel Developers and Pelwatte Sugar were among enterprises and assets named in the law controversial law, which was passed by a legislature in which the ruling coalition has a two thirds majority.

Violating property rights of citizens by expropriation was a concept that became widespread in Eastern Europe.

Analysts point out that in the feudal era, all property was owned by the king.

But in post-feudal Eastern Europe, newly established property rights of people were re-taken by the 'sovereign' state, which had assumed the powers previously held by the king, especially with the spread of Marxian ideology and fascist-nationalism.

The controversial law has become a valuable example to those who study rule of law, justice, citizen's freedoms, the separation of powers in a free country and absolute majoritarianism.

In naming specific firms and assets as 'under-performing' or 'under-utilized' by unknown criteria by the secretly hatched law, representative who voted against the law pointed out, the legislature trespassed on the functions of the executive.

The main shareholder of Pelwatte Sugar has pointed out that under the criteria set by the law itself - which involved assets given to private investors by the state within 20 years - the firm did not fall within the definition.

However judicial review of the expropriated assets was specifically blocked by the law, which legal analysts said was a case where the legislature trespassed on the functions of the judiciary.

After Sri Lanka gained independence from Britain, citizens and non-citizens were expropriated several times by the elected ruling class, violating property rights and killing newly emergent native entrepreneurs, but they could still go to court.

The law also named a single firm, Hotel Developers, which legal analysts said was ad hominen or targeting a specific victim. Such a law, would have been struck down by courts in a free country.

Before the enactment of Sri Lanka's 1972 constitution, ad hominen laws have been struck down by Britain's Privy Council, to which citizens aggrieved by the state or rulers could petition to.