The revocation of alienation of State land is lawful under the National Land Code until formal registration is completed, and judicial review focuses on procedural propriety rather than merits.

[1] On 19 March 2013, the Court dismissed the Applicant's application to quash the respondent's decision to revoke the alienation of a piece of land. The grounds of the decision are as follows:

Brief Account Of The Facts

[2] On 3 February 1993, the Applicant submitted an application for the alienation of State land for mixed development. On 26 July 1995, the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (MMKN) approved the Applicant's application for the alienation of a plot of State Land known as Lot A, Kg. Melayu Subang Tambahan measuring 70 acres for mixed development.

[3] Subsequent thereto, the Applicant appealed to MMKN for the express condition of a portion of the land from 'industrial' to 'shop office and commercial complex'. By a letter dated 5 August 1996, the appeal was allowed.

[4] By a letter dated 29 April 2005, the Land Administrator informed the Applicant that Form 5A will only be issued after the pre-computation plans has been submitted and approved by the Selangor Town and Country Planning Department.

[5] On 17 January 2006, the Applicant appealed to the Land Administrator to fix the premium at RM22.00 per square meter and to change the express condition of the land as 'commercial'. On 21 August 2006, the appeal was rejected by the Land Administrator.

[6] Subsequently, the Applicant appeal's to the Land Administrator for the express condition of the land to be changed from 'mixed development' to 'commercial was allowed on 15 November 2007.

[7] On 29 May 2008, the Applicant submitted the pre-computation plans to the Pejabat Daerah Petaling. On 29 July 2008, the Applicant also submitted the pre-computation plans to the Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA).

[8] By a letter dated 27 June 2012, the Pejabat Daerah Petaling (PDTP) informed the Applicant that the approval for alienation of the land to the Applicant had been revoked by MMKN on 23 May 2012 ('the impugned decision').

Applicant's Case

[9] The challenge against the impugned decision to revoke the approval for the alienation of the land is premised on the following grounds:

1. The respondent have acted illegally, irrationally, unreasonably, in excess of jurisdiction, took it account irrelevant considerations and/or failed to take into account relevant considerations when making the decision; and

2. The reason for the revocation is absurd and devoid of logic.

[10] In brief, the main grounds in support of the application for judicial review are as follows:

1) The State Authority has approved the alienation of the land vide the letter dated 29 April 2005;

2) The requisite Form 5A would be issued after the Pre-computation Plans have been approved;

3) The Pre-computation Plans were submitted to PDTP and MBSA as evidenced by letters dated 29 May 2008 and 29 July 2008;

4) The relevant authorities did not do anything to approve the Pre-computation Plans despite various reminders by the Applicant;

5) On 27 June 2012, the decision to revoke the approval was conveyed to the Applicant and no reasons was given for the revocation;

6) In a telephone conversation between the authorised representative of the Applicant one Anthony Michael and Dato' Zulkepli Bin Ahmad, the District Officer of the District of Petaling, the said Anthony Michael was informed that the revocation was due to the failure of the Applicant to pay the premium; and

7) The Respondents, in revoking the approval for alienation have acted illegally, irrationally, unreasonably, in excess of jurisdiction, took into account irrelevant considerations when making the decision to revoke the alienation of the land to the App