Non-compliance with mandatory timelines under Section 38(5) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 affects the court's jurisdiction to hear land reference proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Indra Nehru Savandiah JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an application by West Coast Express Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as WCE) to strike out the land reference proceeding for non-compliance with s 38(5) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as LAA 1960).

[2] This Court allowed the application with RM1,000.00 in costs.

[3] An appeal has been lodged against the decision.

Background Facts

[4] The applicant is a registered owner of a piece of land held under Lot 5554, GRN 35012, Mukim Kapar, Klang District, Selangor.

[5] The applicant is dissatisfied with the award regarding his land acquisition and objected by submitting Form N on 24 March 2017 at the Land Office.

[6] It is undisputed that Form O was submitted more than six months after the applicant submitted Form N.

[7] The applicant and the respondent do not dispute the timeline of this land reference proceeding. They are as follows:

[8] WCE asserted that non-compliance with s 38(5) of the LAA 1960 directly impacts this Court 's jurisdiction regarding the consideration of the matter.

[9] WCE argued about the effect of the word "shall", as it appears in s 38(5) of the LAA 1960, which imposed mandatory compliance.

[10] The applicant argued that s 38(5) of the LAA is a directory provision rather than a mandatory one.

The Issue To Be Tried

[11] Does non-compliance with the statutory requirement under s 38(5) of the LAA 1960 affect this Court 's jurisdiction to hear the land reference?

Decision Of The Court

[12] The late filing of Form O is undisputed in this matter.

[13] The applicant referenced the High Court case in Projek Lintasan Kota Sdn Bhd v. Wisma Denmark Sdn Bhd & Anor; 2012 MarsdenLR 1627 ; [2012] 5 AMR 176 to argue that s 38(5) of the LAA 1960 is a directory rather than a mandatory procedural requirement.

[14] The LAA 1960 constitutes a complete and comprehensive legislative act governing substantive law, procedural guidelines, and the requisite forms applicable to all parties involved.

[15] The LAA 1960 has been established to ensure landowners receive proper compensation, enabling acquiring authorities to advance their projects while safeguarding the public interest. Failing to adhere to the prescribed procedures will disrupt this balance, resulting in unnecessary project delays and adversely affecting the interests of all parties involved.

[16] In the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd v. Inch Kenneth Kajang Rubber Ltd & Anor & Other Appeals; 2010 MarsdenLR 2516 ; , it was decided that the LAA 1960, being a special act, must be strictly adhered to and applies to all relevant parties concerned.

[17] Whether the term "shall" in specific legislation is mandatory or directory hinges on the legislature's intention, which can be discerned by analysing the overall scope of the statute that is to be construed. The High Court 's decision in the case of Chan Eng Keat v. Liang ZhiQiang & Anor is referenced.

[18] Consequently, analysing how the Court interprets the remaining subsections in the LAA 1960 is pertinent.

[19] The Federal Court 's decision in Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kinta ; 2004 MarsdenLR 2240 ; 2005 MarsdenLR 2479 established the mandatory nature of s 38(2) of the LAA 1960.

[20] Likewise, the Court of Appeal decision in Pentadbir Tanah Seremban v. Inisiatif Jaya Sdn Bhd & another appeal; [2017] 9 CLJ 1 confirmed the mandatory nature of s 38(2) of the LAA 1960. It was decided as follows:

"[59] It is clear that the requirement stipulated in s 38 (2) above mentioned is mandatory by the usage of the word "shall", which precedes the requirement to state fully. The word "fully", being a non-technical must be understood in its natural and ordinary meaning. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary interprets the word "fully" to mean 'completely or entirely, to the fullest extent.

[60] Thus, we are of the opinion that s 38(2) of Act 486 requires that the grounds of a