The government has a statutory duty to pay the amount specified in a certificate issued under Section 33 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956, and this obligation is binding and not discretionary.

Shahnaz Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1]This is an application for judicial review by the applicant, Pristine Powers Sdn Bhd against the respondent's non payment of the certified sum and interest under the s 33 Certificate in the sum of RM11,210,235.70 being compensation for compulsory land acquisition including late payment charges to the applicant.

Reliefs Sought

[2] The applicant sought the following reliefs as reproduced below:

"1. Satu perintah mandamus untuk memaksa Responden, dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh penyampaian perintah ini, untuk membuat bayaran jumlah yang diperakui sebanyak RM13,734,727.77 bersama dengan faedah penghakiman pada kadar 5% setahun yang dikira dari 16 June 2023 (sehari selepas pengeluaran Sijil Penghakiman bertarikh 15 June 2023) sehingga tarikh pembayaran penuh;

1. Bahawa keperluan untuk penyampaian kediri perintah termeterai ini dikecualikan dan penyampaian perintah termeterai ini dilaksanakan dengan penyampaian kepada Responden dengan meninggalkan sesalinan perintah termeterai ini di alamat peguamcara atau penasihat undang-undang bagi Responden;

2. Bahawa notis penal menurut Aturan 45 Kaedah 7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 disahkan (endorsed) di atas perintah ini;

3. Bahawa Pemohon bebas untuk memohon sebarang arahan dan/atau perintah selanjutnya sekiranya perlu; dan

4. Bahawa Responden adalah bertanggungjawab (liable) untuk membayar kepada Pemohon atas asas indemniti sepenuhnya bagi semua kos, yang timbul dari atau yang diakibatkan oleh Pemohon dalam prosiding-prosiding ini."

Factual Background

[3] The applicant is the registered proprietor of Lot 126868, PN 112920, Mukim Bandar Ulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Schedule Land") a parcel of land measuring approximately 38,200 square feet (3,549 square metres).

[4] A portion of the Schedule Land was acquired by way of the Selangor State Gazette No 7 date 29 March 2018 ("Acquisition") for the Projek Lebuhraya Lembah Klang Timur (EKVE) ("EKVE Project").

[5] On 17 October 2018, the Land Administrator awarded the applicant compensation of RM11,210,235.70 ("Award") for the compulsory acquisition of the Scheduled Land.

[6] The applicant was served with a notice of award in Form H on 2 November 2018, which was dated 17 October 2018.

[7] Despite multiple reminders and demands from the applicant, the awarded compensation of RM11,210,235.70 had yet to be received.

[8] Consequentially, the applicant is involved in nine legal proceedings related to the acquisition of the Schedule Land:

(i) Shah Alam High Court Judicial Review No BA-25-122-11/2019 ("JR 122") which seeks to compel authorities to acquire the entire Schedule Land, including the mandatory 13- metre highway setback.

(ii) Shah Alam High Court Judicial Review No BA-25-123-11/2019 ("JR 123")- Challenges the Minister of Works' decision to reduce the highway setback from 13 metres to 3 metres.

(iii) Shah Alam High Court Originating Summons No BA-24NCVC-1294-09/2019 ("OS") - challenging the legality of the EKVE Project's construction without valid planning permission.

(iv) Shah Alam High Court Land Reference No BA-15-141-06/2019 ("LR 141") - Land reference proceedings arising from the concessionaire's objection to the compensation awarded.

(v) Shah Alam High Court Land Reference No BA-15-140-06/2019 ("LR 140") - Land reference proceedings arising from the applicant's objection to the compensation awarded.

(vi) Shah Alam High Court Suit No BA-21NCVC-31-06/2019 ("EKVE's Suit") - Filed by the concessionaire to challenge the applicant's ownership of part of the Schedule Land.

(vii) Shah Alam High Court Judicial Review No BA-25-74-09/2020 ("JR 74") - Seeks payment of the awarded compensation.

(viii) Shah Alam High Court Application for Judicial Review No BA- 25-27-06/2023 ("JR27") - Challenges the Minister of Works' decision to withdraw the land acquisition.

[9] Among the nine legal proceedings, JR 74 is particularly relevant to the current case. JR 74 involved the applicant's judicial review against (1) the Land