CASE OF THE WEEK

The second respondent wished to build a hotel on a land and had applied to the Land Administrator (`the first respondent') to acquire part of the appellant's land to build an access road direct to the second respondent's land. Two attempts were made to acquire part of the land but were rejected. Unbeknown to the appellant, a third attempt was made by declaring that it was required for public purpose under s. 3(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (`the Act'). A declaration to acquire the land (`Form D') was gazetted but was never served nor notified to the appellant and nine months later, the appellant was served with Form E to attend a land inquiry by the first respondent. The first respondent proceeded to serve Form H, which constituted the decision to reject the appellant's request that the acquisition be stayed or withdrawn and to proceed with the acquisition by making the award. The appellant then applied to the High Court for judicial review and to obtain an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first respondent. At the hearing, the second respondent raised two preliminary objections against the application, namely (i) the application was not made within time as prescribed by O. 53 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (`RHC') as it was filed more than 40 days after the decision to acquire was gazetted in Form D; and (ii) the proper party, which was the State Authority, was not named as a party. The application was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal against the preliminary objections raised in the High Court. It was further submitted that the High Court judge erred in law and in facts in failing to consider that the failure by the first respondent to make and serve an award in Form H within two years on the appellant after Form D was gazetted was contradictory to s. 8(4) of the Act and thereby rendered the declaration of acquisition gazetted to lapse, cease, terminate and be of no effect.

Held (dismissing appeal)

Per Abdul Wahab Patail JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) The High Court did not err in sustaining the preliminary objection. The appellant's grievance was not so much on the award itself but the acquisition. The objection by the appellant, at all times, was in respect of the acquisition of its land, not the quantum of the award itself. (para 9)

(2) Since it was a decision to acquire that was challenged, the challenge was against the decision of the State Authority, by virtue of s. 8 of the Act. Since the Act is, subject to compensation, the legislation that empowers a State Authority to deprive a person of his property, its provisions must be adhered to strictly. If a power is stated to be with the State Authority, it could not be exercised by another. An action could not be taken against another for the exercise of its power by the State Authority. The Act only provides that the Land Administrator acts upon the decision of the State Authority to hold inquiry for the hearing of claims to compensation for all interests in such land. An action against the decision of the State Authority could not name the Land Administrator. (paras 11 & 12)

(3) The two year time frame applied to the making of the award in Form G under s. 14(1) and not the giving of the notice in Form H under s. 16 of the Act. Therefore, the first respondent had acted well within the two year time frame from the date of Form D. (para 18)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Responden kedua bercadang untuk membina sebuah hotel di atas sebidang tanah dan telah memohon kepada Pentadbir Tanah (`responden pertama') untuk mengambil sebahagian daripada tanah perayu untuk membina jalan masuk ke tanah responden kedua. Dua percubaan dibuat untuk mengambil sebahagian tanah tersebut tetapi telah ditolak. Tanpa diketahui oleh perayu, percubaan ketiga telah dibuat dengan mengisytiharkan bahawa tanah tersebut diperlukan bagi tujuan awam di bawah s. 3(1)(a) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (`Akta'). Satu pengisytiharan untuk mengambil tanah tersebut (`Borang D') diwartakan tetapi tidak disampaikan mahupun dimaklumkan kepada perayu dan sembilan bulan kemudian, perayu disampaikan dengan Borang E untuk menghadiri siasatan ke atas tanah tersebut oleh responden pertama. Responden pertama seterusnya menyampaikan Borang H, yang mana merupakan keputusan untuk menolak permohonan perayu agar pengambilan tersebut ditangguhkan dan untuk meneruskan dengan pengambilan dengan memberi award. Perayu kemudiannya memohon kepada Mahkamah Tinggi bagi semakan kehakiman dan untuk mendapatkan satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan responden pertama. Semasa perbicaraan, responden kedua membangkitkan dua bantahan awalan terhadap permohonan tersebut, iaitu (i) permohonan tersebut tidak dibuat dalam masa yang ditetapkan oleh A. 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 (`KMT') kerana ia difailkan lebih 40 hari selepas keputusan untuk mengambil diwartakan dalam Borang D; dan (ii) pihak yang sepatutnya, iaitu Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, tidak dinamakan sebagai pihak. Permohonan tersebut ditolak oleh Mahkamah Tinggi. Oleh itu, rayuan ini terhadap bantahan awalan yang dibangkitkan di Mahkamah Tinggi. Dihujahkan selanjutnya bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi khilaf, dari segi undang-undang dan fakta, kerana gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa kegagalan responden pertama untuk membuat dan menyampaikan award dalam Borang H dalam masa dua tahun kepada perayu selepas Borang D diwartakan, adalah bercanggah dengan s. 8(4) Akta dan oleh itu, menyebabkan pengisytiharan pengambilan yang diwartakan luput, terhenti, tamat dan tiada kesan.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan)

Oleh Abdul Wahab Patail HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Mahkamah Tinggi tidak khilaf dalam mengekalkan bantahan awalan. Ketakpuashatian perayu bukanlah seberapa pada award itu sendiri tetapi pada pengambilan tersebut. Bantahan oleh perayu, pada setiap masa, adalah mengenai pengambilan tanah tersebut, bukan kuantum award itu sendiri.

(2) Memandangkan keputusan untuk mengambil yang dicabar, cabaran adalah terhadap keputusan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, di bawah s. 8 Akta. Oleh kerana Akta adalah, tertakluk kepada pampasan, undang-undang yang memberi kuasa kepada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri untuk menafikan seseorang akan hartanya, peruntukan-peruntukannya mesti dipatuhi dengan ketat. Jika kuasa dinyatakan terletak pada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, ia tidak boleh dijalankan oleh yang lain. Satu tindakan tidak boleh diambil ke atas yang lain bagi perjalanan kuasa oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri. Akta hanya memperuntukkan bahawa Pentadbir Tanah bertindak mengikut keputusan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri untuk mengadakan siasatan bagi perbicaraan tuntutan pampasan bagi semua kepentingan ke atas tanah. Satu tindakan terhadap keputusan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri tidak boleh menamakan Pentadbir Tanah.

(3) Had masa dua tahun terpakai bagi pembuatan award dalam Borang G di bawah s. 14(1) dan bukan penyampaian notis dalam Borang H di bawah s. 16 Akta. Oleh itu, responden pertama telah bertindak dalam had masa dua tahun dari tarikh Borang D.

Case(s) referred to:

Arthur Ponniah Gurubatham & Satu Lagi lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan [2008] 3 CLJ 17 HC (refd)

Ee Chong Pang & Ors v. The Land Administrator of The District Of Alor Gajah & Anor [2013] 3 CLJ 649 CA (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 18

Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 3(1)(a), 8(1), (4), 14(1), 16

Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 3(6)

Counsel:

For the appellant - Bahari Yeow; M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill

For the first respondent - Noorbahari Baharuddin; State Legal Advisor

For the second respondent - Bastian Vendargon (PK Nathan & Gene Vendargon with him); M/s Bastian Vendargon

[Appeal from High Court, Kuala Terengganu; Judicial Review No: 13-01-2008]

Reported by Najib Tamby