Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3445
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
TING AI HONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI PERAK – Respondent
[Originating Summon No: AA-24NCvC-455-10/2023]
The court ruled that the alteration of land tenure from perpetual ownership to a 99-year leasehold was ultra vires and unconstitutional, affirming the plaintiffs' standing to challenge such decisions.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 - Section 380 - The court addressed the wrongful conversion of land tenure from perpetual ownership to a 99-year leasehold, asserting that such alteration was ultra vires and unconstitutional. The plaintiffs sought rectification to restore their perpetual ownership rights. (Paras 1, 11, 18)
(B) Authority to Alter Land Tenure - The court reaffirmed that the government lacks authority to compel a landowner to exchange a freehold title for a leasehold, emphasizing that administrative actions exceeding statutory powers are invalid. (Paras 11, 18)
(C) Standing of Subsequent Purchasers - The court held that subsequent purchasers have standing to challenge unlawful alterations of land tenure, reinforcing that constitutional violations cannot be perpetuated through administrative errors. (Paras 12, 18)
(D) Application of Caveat Emptor - The principle of caveat emptor does not apply to tenure status alterations, as the plaintiffs challenge the legality of the tenure conversion rather than physical property conditions. (Paras 13, 15) (E) Appeal Under Section 418 - The court ruled that failure to appeal under s 418 of the NLC does not bar claims challenging ultra vires decisions, as established in prior cases. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, 110 individuals, are registered owners of 84 land titles originally held under perpetual ownership, which were erroneously converted to 99-year leasehold by the Registrar. They seek rectification under s 380 of the National Land Code.
Findings of Court:
The court declared the tenure of the disputed land titles as perpetual ownership and ordered the cancellation of the 99-year leasehold titles. The plaintiffs are granted liberty to file ancillary applications.
Issues: The main issues included the authority to alter land tenure, standing of subsequent purchasers, application of caveat emptor, and the necessity of appealing under s 418 of the National Land Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the alteration was ultra vires and unconstitutional, affirming the plaintiffs' standing to challenge the decision and clarifying that caveat emptor does not apply to tenure status.
Result: Enclosure 1 is allowed, with parties bearing their respective costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. wrongful conversion of land tenure (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiffs registered owners (Para 2) |
| 3. land titles reclassified (Para 3) |
| 4. plaintiffs acquired titles (Para 4) |
| 5. prior applications resulted (Para 5) |
| 6. preliminary objection by defendant (Para 6) |
| 7. registrar's role central (Para 7 , 8) |
| 8. plaintiffs' claim concerns (Para 9) |
| 9. third preliminary objection (Para 10) |
| 10. authority to alter land tenure (Para 11) |
| 11. standing of subsequent purchasers (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 12. application of caveat emptor (Para 13) |
| 13. appeal under section 418 (Para 17) |
| 14. court held that the (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This case concerns the wrongful conversion of land tenure from perpetual ownership to a 99-year leasehold by the Registrar of Land. The plaintiffs allege that this administrative error affected numerous plots in Mukim Sitiawan, Daerah Manjung, Perak. The plots are as depicted in the intitulement above, which were originally held under perpetual ownership. This court previously ruled in Lim Poh Chuen & Anor v. Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak; [2024] 11 MLJ 258; [2024] 7 CLJ 269; [2024] 5 AMR 417, involving neighbouring properties, also in Mukim Sitiawan, Daerah Manjung, Perak and the same defendant, in favour of the plaintiffs. Building on this precedent and the cases relied upon in Lim Poh Chuen (supra), the plaintiffs contend that the tenure change was ultra vires and unconstitutional, and seek rectification to restore their perpetual ownership rights.
Facts
[2] The plaintiffs, totalling 110 individuals, are the registered owners of 84 land titles. The original plans for these lands were registered and issued in 1904, 1960, 1918, and 1929 under EMR ("Entry Mukim Register") and/or CT ("Certificate of Title").
[3] Upon the enactment of the National Land Code 1965, EMR titles were reclassified as Geran Mukim, and CT titles as Geran, both indicating perpetual ownership. The master titles were submitted to the defendant for housing development purposes, leading to subdivision and the issuance of individual titles. During this process, the defendant erroneously changed the tenure of the plaintiffs' lands from 'in perpetuity' to '99-year leasehold'.
[4] The plaintiffs acquired their titles through transactions or inheritance, with the titles already designated as 99-year leasehold at the time of acquisition. They were not the original owners and were aware of the leasehold status upon obtaining the titles.
[5] The plaintiffs submit that prior to this suit, similar applications addressing the same issues resulted in favourable High court orders. The plaintiffs now seek correction of the defendant's error under s 380 of the National Land Code , which allows the Registrar to amend errors in land titles.
The Relief Sought By The Plaintiffs:
a) a declaration that the 84 properties listed in the application, currently registered as 99-year leasehold, are invalid and void.
b) an order directing the Perak State Land Registrar to cancel the existing 99-year leasehold titles for these properties and issue new titles granting perpetual ownership.
c) permission for the plaintiffs to file additional applications, if necessary, to effectuate the court's orders.
d) an order for costs.
Issues
a) Whether the defendant had the authority to alter the land tenure from perpetual ownership to 99-year leasehold;
b) Whether the plaintiffs, as subsequent purchasers, have the standing to challenge the alteration of land tenure;
c) Whether the principle of caveat emptor applies to the plaintiffs' acquisition of the properties; and
d) Whether the plaintiffs should have appealed under s 418 of the National Land Code .
Preliminary Objections By The Defendant
[6] First preliminary objection: The defendant argues that they should not be named as a defendant in this case because the decision to grant the land to the original owners under a 99-year leasehold was made by the State Authority (Pihak Berkuasa Negeri - (PBN)). Therefore, any legal action agains
