Back
2023 MarsdenLR 276
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SAIFUL BAHRI MD JUN & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PIHAK BERKUASA NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-21NCvC-47-08/2019]
The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override statutory powers of the State Authority in matters of land alienation, as established by the National Land Code.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 - Sections 40, 41, and 43 - Alienation of state land - Plaintiffs, as pioneer settlers, sought alienation of land they worked on but faced repeated rejections from the State Authority - Plaintiffs claimed legitimate expectation based on temporary occupation licenses and representations made by officials - Court ruled that discretion to alienate lies solely with the State Authority and legitimate expectation cannot override statutory powers - Plaintiffs' claims dismissed. (Paras 29-36)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, who were pioneer settlers, applied for alienation of land but were repeatedly rejected. They claimed legitimate expectation based on their work and temporary licenses, but the State Authority maintained discretion over alienation decisions. (Paras 1-13)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Plaintiffs' claim of legitimate expectation was unfounded as it could not override the statutory powers of the State Authority. The decision to reject their applications was lawful and justified. (Paras 29-36)
Issues: The court addressed whether the Plaintiffs should have commenced their action through judicial review, the applicability of legitimate expectation in land alienation, and the support of the Plaintiffs' evidence for such a claim. (Paras 15, 29)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the discretion to alienate state land is governed by statutory provisions, and legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to challenge such decisions. The Plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims with evidence of promises made by the State Authority. (Paras 29-36)
Result: Plaintiffs' case dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs' claims of land alienation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. defendants' arguments against the plaintiffs' claims. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 3. judicial review as the proper legal process. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. doctrine of legitimate expectation in land alienation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. insufficient evidence for legitimate expectation. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 6. final dismissal of plaintiffs' case. (Para 46) |
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiffs are aggrieved that the lands they worked on as pioneer settlers in Kampung Pulau Meranti, were not alienated to them. Their applications for alienation were rejected by the 1st Defendant, hence the instant suit.
The Plaintiffs' Case
[2] The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs ("P1, P2") were pioneer settlers in Kampung Pulau Meranti in the 1980's. The 3rd Plaintiff ("P3") is the son of a pioneer settler who is now deceased.
[3] The settlors were individually assigned plots of land to work on. They cleared and tilled the land, constructed the infrastructure on their respective lands for amenities, planted fruit trees and built houses to live in.
[4] Sometime in 2002, they applied for alienation of the plots worked on. Their application received support from Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung, Kampung Pulau Meranti.
[5] However, on 9 August 2007, P1 was informed vide letter issued by the 3rd Defendant ("D3") that "Dukacita dimaklumkan bahawa Pihak Berkuasa Negeri melalui Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor Bil 17/207 pada 6 Jun 2007 telah menimbang dan menolak permohonan tuan/puan." Both P2 and P3 also received similar letters dated 20 September 207 and 4 October 2007 respectively.
[6] The Plaintiffs were aggrieved and disappointed at the rejection of their application, particularly when it came to their knowledge that other settlors were alienated the plots they worked on. Subsequent to the rejection decision, P1 and P2 applied for and was granted a Temporary Occupation Licence ("TOL") by D3 for one year from 13 February 2008 to 31 December 2008. The TOL was renewed upon its expiry to 31 December 2009. This further heightened their expectation that they would subsequently be alienated the plots of land they worked on.
[7] Sometime later, D3 sent a letter dated 11 January 2010 requesting P1 to attend an interview in respect of his application. However, the said letter was not received by him. He complains that he was denied an opportunity to present his case.
[8] Subsequent to the 1st letter of rejection in 2007, P1 and P2 were again informed vide letters 30 September 2011 and 11 May 2012 respectively that their application could not be approved. This time however, reasons were given. P1 was told that "tiada lagi plot-plot yang sesuai yang boleh dipertimbangkan bagi tujuan tapak gentian di Kawasan tersebut kerana hampir keseluruhan Kawasan di Kg Pulau Meranti ini telah diluluskan permberimilikan dan dikeluarkan hak milik." As for P2, the reason for the rejection was, "kerana Pihak Berkuasa Negeri hanya memberi kelulusan kepada peneroka tegar sahaja."
[9] Some years passed before the Plaintiffs revived their application for alienation in 2017 through the efforts of P1. A discussion with D3 was held on the matter. D3 gave an undertaking that he will endeavor to find out if there were available plots for alienation to the Plaintiffs. Subsequent to the discussion, a physical inspection and survey on P1 and P2's plot of land was done.
[10] Nothing resulted from the promise by D3. P1 again wrote to D3, on behalf of himself and the other Plaintiffs on 12 March 2018. He requested that their applications be reviewed and considered in a professional and fair manner. There was no response, hence the instant suit. Till today, the Plaintiffs continue to work on their respective plots of land.
[11] The Plaintiffs claim that the conduct of the Defendants had
