Back
2021 MarsdenLR 1877
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KOH SIEW & ORS – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA & ORS (ENCL 15) – Respondent
[Application For Judicial Review No: WA-25-135-04/2021]
The proposed intervener must demonstrate a direct interest in the judicial review application, as commercial interest does not qualify as a legitimate basis for intervention under O 53 r 8 ROC.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Section 3E, 8 – Application for intervention in judicial review – Proposed intervener must demonstrate direct interest – The PI failed to establish they are a proper party as they do not possess a direct interest under O 53 r 8 ROC – Judicial review sought to challenge the decision of the State Authority to acquire land, not compensation matters – The criteria for a proper party were reiterated with references to established case law. (Paras 18, 19, 22, 32, 48)
Facts of the case: The Applicants, owners of the land, sought judicial review to challenge an acquisition decision by the State Authority pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The PI, a project developer, also sought to intervene in these proceedings.
Findings of Court: The court concluded that the PI failed to demonstrate a direct interest in the judicial review application, thereby failing the test for intervention.
Issues: The issues concerned whether the PI could be classified as 'persons interested' and the implications of their commercial interest versus direct interest in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a proper party must have direct interest in the matter and reiterated that mere commercial interest does not suffice to grant standing. The judicial review application aimed at the legality of the acquisition decision rests solely on the State Authority's actions.
Result: Application by the PI to intervene dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
[1] Enclosure 15 is the Proposed Intervener's ("PI") application seeking for leave to intervene and to be added as the 5th Respondent in the judicial review proceeding filed by the Applicants to inter alia quash the 1st and 4th Respondent's decision (the "Decision") to compulsorily acquire the Applicants' land held under GRN 79150, Lot 20081, Seksyen 67, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan ("the Land/the Applicants' land") pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("the Act") as declared under s 8 of the Act and published in Federal Government Gazette No 21846 dated 30 December 2020 by the 2nd Respondent and as notified by the 3rd Respondent to the Applicants vide Form E dated 22 January 2021. The Applicants further seek for a Declaration that the 1st and/or 4th Respondent's Decision to compulsorily acquire the Land is invalid, ultra vires the law, null and void.
Background
[2] The Applicants, Koh Siew 83 years old, Koh Swee Oh 73 years old, and Koh Soo Kim 70 years old are sisters and the registered owners of approximately 463 square meters of the Land bearing the postal address at No 23, Jalan Inai, 55100 Kuala Lumpur.
[3] Since the Land is located in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, pursuant to the Federal Territory (Modification of Land Acquisition Act 1960 ) (Amendment) Order 1975, the 1st Respondent is named as the State Authority having power to acquire the Land under s 3(1) read together with s 3E of the Act.
[4] The 2nd Respondent is the Director of Lands and Mines Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur who is empowered under s 4 and/or s 8 of the Act to issue Form A and Form D which are required by the Act to be published in the Government Gazette.
[5] The 3rd Respondent is the Land Administrator of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur who is empowered under s 3(2) of the Act to receive and process an application for compulsory acquisition of land under s 3(1)(b) and/or (c) of the Act. The 3rd Respondent is also responsible for administration and conduct of the land acquisition proceedings under Part II to Part V of the Act.
[6] The 4th Respondent is the Land Executive Committee, Federal Territory.
[7] The PI, is a private company and a project developer. The PI has submitted its application to the 1st Respondent to acquire the Land.
[8] Before a partition exercise, the Land and one Lot 20080 which together formed Lot 315 was co-owned by the Applicants and the PI. Pursuant to a 2010 Court Order, Lot 315 was partitioned and the Applicants now owned the Land, whereas the PI owns Lot 20080.
[9] By way of Federal Government Gazette No 21846 dated 10 December 2020 published on 30 December 2020 pursuant to s 8 of the Act, the 2nd Respondent gave notice of the 1st and/or 4th Respondent's declaration of the intended acquisition of the Land.
[10] On 20 April 2021, the Applicants filed an Application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings pursuant to O 53 r 3 Rules of 2012 ("ROC").
[11] On 3 May 2021, this Court had granted leave to the Applicants to commence judicial review proceedings.
[12] Thereafter, the PI filed encl 15 moving for the prayers therein. The Applicants object to the PI's instant application.
Summary Of The PI's Contentions
[13] Summarily, the arguments advanced by the PI are as follows:
i. That they would be 'adversely affected' by the Applicant's application for judicial review as they are the recipient of the 1st and/or 4th Respondent's approval for the acquisition of the Applicant's land;
ii. That they were involved in the 1st and/or 4th Respondent's decision-making process;
iii. That they have the obligation to pay compensation to the Applicants for the acquisition of the Applicant's land by the 1st and/or 4th Respondent;
iv. Substantial facts alleged by the Applicant in their supporting affidavit are only within their special knowledge.
Summary Of The Applicant's Contentions
[14] Summarily, the Applicants' grounds for opposing the instant application are as follows:
i. The PI ca
