The Plaintiff was not a 'person interested' in the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, as it was not established at the time of acquisition, thus its claims were dismissed.

Introduction

[1] The Management Corporation of Putra Walk or Perbadanan Pengurusan Putrawalk (Plaintiff) take this legal action against the Defendant (the previous proprietor of the land) for the return of the award of compensation in the sum of RM2,399,000.00 by the Land Administrator in a compulsory land acquisition involving a portion of land measuring 1,055 square meters within the commercial development known as "Putra Walk at Bandar Putra Permai", Mukim Petaling, District Petaling, Selangor.

[2] The acquisition was carried out pursuant to s 3(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486] for the purposes of "Projek Mass Rapid Transit Lembah Kelang Jajaran Sungai Buloh-Serdang, Daerah Petaling, Selangor.".

[3] On 23 September 2016, the Land Administrator awarded the compensation in the sum of RM2,399,000.00 to the Defendant as the registered proprietor at the time of the acquisition.

[4] The acquisition process was subsequently completed on or around 15 December 2016 upon the issuance of Form K whereby the State Authority took formal possession of the acquired portion of the land. The compensation has been paid to the Defendant.

[5] On 5 January 2022, the Plaintiff commenced this suit to seek relief in the sum of RM2,399,000.00. The Plaintiff contends that the compensation sum must be paid to the Plaintiff as it is a person interested in and the Defendant has been unjustly enriched in the receipt of the compensation sum.

[6] The Defendant denies liability and contends that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the compensation sum awarded by the Land Administrator for the following reasons:

(a) the Plaintiff was yet to be established at the time of acquisition, ie as at the relevant date of the gazette under s 8 of Act 486.

(b) at the time of acquisition, the Defendant was the registered proprietor of the land.

(c) the relief sought by the Plaintiff are barred by the Plaintiff's own conduct in failing to enforce its purported rights at the material time.

(d) the suit is against the provisions of the Act and the filing of the suit amounts to a circumvention of the Act.

[7] The trial had been conducted via physical presence of the parties before this Court on 21 and 22 June 2023.

[8] This Court has heard the witnesses' evidence during the trial ie 5 Plaintiff's witnesses and 2 Defendant's witnesses, respectively.

Agreed Facts/Background

[9] In 2007, the Defendant who was the previous proprietor of the land held under PN 94558