The court reaffirmed that statutory rights of entry for utility services override claims of trespass by landowners, especially when such rights were granted before subsequent transfers of ownership.

[47] The plaintiff also relies on the decision of the High court in Syarikat Pengangkutan Kesejahteraan Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd; Ng Ah Boon (Third Party), (which has since been affirmed by the court of Appeal) where the court held that without a proper endorsement of the notice purportedly issued under s 11(2) of the Electricity Act 1990 (which is similar to s 53 of the Electricity Act 1949 ) and without proof of proper assessment inquiry at the District Land Administrator's office as provided by the law, the preconditions of the Electricity Act not being satisfied, the court could not give legal recognition to the occupation of the plaintiff's land by the defendant as this would not only be contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act in particular ss 11 and 16 but would also be a violation of art 13(1) of the Federal Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with the law. The learned judge Hishamuddin Yunus J went on to say that it is his judgment that it was no answer that the recipient of the alleged notice had never objected to whatever was done by the defendant TNB or the District Administrator and had in fact accepted the compensation. The learned judge then allowed the plaintiff's claim for damages for trespass with damages to be assessed by the registrar.

[48] The plaintiff submits that although first defendant has adduced evidence to show that there was a decision by the Land Administrator but they had not shown that the compensation was paid.

The Defendant's Submission

Whether Endorsement Is Required

[49] The first defendant submits that Electricity Act is a specific statute whereas the National Land Code is a general statute. Where there is a conflict over certain matter between the two statutes, the rule of construction is that specific statute will prevail over the general statute.

[50] The first defendant concedes that the 1949 Act was amended by the Electricity (Amendment) Act 1984 to include subsection (9A) to s 53 which requires the endorsement of the notice of such entry on the title deeds of the plaintiff. However, the first defendant submits that such an amendment does not have any retrospective effect on s 53 of the 1949 Act.

[51] In support of their contention the first defendant had relied upon the case of Arumugam Letchumanan v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd , [2011] 5 MLJ 279 where the court had to address the issue of whether there was compliance of s 53(9A) of the 1949 Act in that there was no endorsement on the plaintiff's title in respect of the defendant's right of way in the construction of a line on the plaintiff's lot in 1981. The High court had this to say:-

... On the issue of right of way, it is appropriate to state that the plaintiff claims there is no compliance of s 53(9A) of the 1949 Act in that there is no endorsement or notation on the plaintiff's Lot (para 29 of PWS). In this regard I adopt the evidence pertaining to Felda Sungai Klah being divided into 'Blok-Blok' or 'Peringkat' as at para 16 above. Further the evidence shows that the collector of land revenue Batang Padang had conducted an inquiry on 27 January 1981 under the 1949 Act and s 53(9A) was not in existence then as it only came into force on 1 April 1984. In Oakfield Enterprise Sdn Bhd, a similar objection was taken. I adopt the position taken by the learned judge in the said case at paras 47-48 of the judgment and also hold the defendant cannot be faulted for omitting to submit those documents for endorsement as there was