2018 MarsdenLR 1664
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
GULA SABAH SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND SURVEYS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: BKI-24NCvC-73/7-2018]
The Respondent's authority to cancel a land application under the Land Ordinance is upheld, reflecting the necessity of compliance with terms set out in the letter of offer.
Headnote:The Appellant sought to set aside the decision of the Deputy Director of Lands regarding land application, citing legal and factual errors. The Court examined the cancellation authority of the Respondent under the Land Ordinance, concluding it was justified as the Appellant failed to comply with the terms of the offer. The Court dismissed the appeal due to these grounds.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant initiated an appeal for restoration of a land application. (Para 1) |
| 2. summary of background facts leading to appeal. (Para 3 , 4) |
[1] By this Originating Summons, the Appellant sought for the following orders-
(a) that the decision of the Deputy Director of Lands and Surveys Department, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah given on 25 April 2018 pursuant to Siasatan Tanah Pengarah (Semakan) No. 22 Tahun 2015 be set aside;
(b) that the Appellant's Land Application No. 91180681 approved and issued with Offer to Alienate Land Under a Rujukan L.S. 180.1.657/52 JL/hjs dated 01 December 1992 be restored;
(c) that the Document of Title for the said Land Application made under CL 185312314 be issued to the Appellant;
(d) that the Order by the Deputy Director of Lands and Surveys Department, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah for the return of the original draft Document of Title for CL 185312314 and for forfeiting the sum of RM420,000.00 paid by the Appellant vide Resit No. 14110419 dated 30 November 1993 be set aside;
(e) that such further and/ or consequential orders or relief or directions as the Court deems fit; and
(f) that the costs of and incidental to this appeal be paid by the Respondent.
[2] The appeal is opposed to by the Respondent.
Salient Background Facts
[3] The Respondent has set out the background facts leading up to the appeal in para 5 of the Affidavit in Opposition (encl 24). The Appellant in their Affidavit in Reply (encl 25) did not dispute these facts, the same of which are reproduced below:-
(a) In or around 1991, the Appellant applied for a State land measuring more or less 8500 acres in Kuala Penyu for the purpose of planting sugar cane. The land application was registered as LA No. 91180681 ("the Land Application");
(b) In or around 1992, a Letter of Offer was issued to the Appellant pursuant to the Land Application. The Letter of Offer expired on 30 November 1993. The terms and conditions of the Letter of Offer, inter alia, include the following:
(i) the Appellant is required to pay a premium of RM840,000.00 wherein 50% of the said premium must be paid when the Appellant accepted the Letter of Offer;
(ii) the Owner covenants to develop 75% of the said land ie by planting sugar cane before the year 2000;
(iii) in the event the Appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Offer and failed to sign the draft land title within 6 months from the date of service of the notice, the Letter of Offer shall be cancelled.
(c) The Appellant accepted the Letter of Offer and paid 50% (RM420,000.00) of the premium on 30 November 1993;
(d) In or around 1999, a draft title bearing No. CL 185312314 made pursuant to the Land Application was issued by the Respondent;
(e) On or around 11 March 2013, the Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia informed the Respondent that the Appellant had been wound up on 25 May 2012;
(f) On 27 July 2013, pursuant to a Land Enquiry (PPHT) Kuala Penyu No. 9 Tahun 2013 Kaedah No. 2(6) Kaedah-Kaedah Tanah, the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue ("ACLR"), Kuala Penyu decided to cancel the Land Application on the ground that the Appellant had been wound up on 25 May 2012;
(g) On 17 June 2015, the Appellant through its solicitors filed an application for revision of the ACLR's decision;
(h) On 25 April 2018, pursuant to the said revision application, the Respondent decided to set aside the Order made by the ACLR. In addition, the Respondent cancelled the Land Application and withdrew the draft title CL 185312314 and directed the Appellant to return the original copy of the draft title CL 185312314. The Respondent also forfeited the premium paid by the Appellant pursuant to r 2(9) of the Land Rules 1930; and
(i) Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Respondent, the Appellant filed the present appeal.
This Decision By The Deputy Director Of Lands And Surveys Department
[4] As enumerated in the background facts above, upon the revision application by the Appellant, the Respondent had set aside the deci