SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 1573

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
CHEAH ENG HUAT & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PULAU PINANG – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No:PA-25-19-04-2019]



Petitioner Advocates:Thayalan ,Respondent Advocate: Siti Hafiza Jaafar

Judicial review can quash land acquisition decisions that serve private interests rather than public economic development under the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Sections 3(1)(b), 4, and 8 – Judicial review proceedings – Applicants sought to quash the 'Notice That Land Is Likely To Be Acquired' and the 'Declaration of Intended Acquisition' for Lot 172 due to illegal acquisition for private benefit instead of public good – The court emphasized that the strict purpose test under s 3(1)(b) must be applied, ruling the acquisition ultra vires as it served private interests (Paras 3, 30, 31, 32).

(B) Judicial review – Proper parties – The office of the Director of Lands and Mines was deemed the proper respondent in judicial review challenging the legality of a decision by the State Authority (Paras 10, 12, 21).

(C) Procedural propriety – The court held that failure to serve cause papers to other parties did not render the application fatally defective due to the provisions in O 53 r 8(1) (Paras 16, 18).

Facts of the case: The applicants, registered trustees of Lot 172, challenged an acquisition for an access route which was intended to facilitate a private housing development (Paras 3, 4, 6).

Findings of Court: The land acquisition was quashed as it violated statutory limits by promoting private rather than public benefit (Paras 31, 32).

Issues: Whether the acquisition was lawful under s 3(1)(b) of the LAA and whether the Director of Lands and Mines was the correct party in judicial review (Paras 10, 25).

Ratio Decidendi: The court firmly stated that the State Authority's discretion must not be exercised to benefit private entities and that judicial reviews must focus on the legality of decisions rather than their merits (Paras 26, 29).

Result: Applications allowed; the acquisition was quashed.

JUDGMENT

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh JC:

Introduction

[1] On 8 October 2020 I granted the applicants the following orders in the instant judicial review proceedings:

(i) an order of certiorari quashing the 'Notice That Land Is Likely To be Acquired' dated 24 December 2018 concerning Lot 172, Seksyen 2, Bandar Jelutong, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang ("Lot 172") published in the Penang State Gazette No 39 (Vol 63 No 1) dated 10 January 2019 under s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("the LAA ");

(ii) an order of certiorari quashing the "Declaration of Intended Acquisition' dated 24 December 2018 concerning Lot 172 published in the Penang State Gazette No 40 (Vol 63 No 1) dated 10 January 2019 under s 8 of the LAA ; and

(iii) a declaration that the 'Notice That Land Is Likely To be Acquired' under s 4 of the LAA dated 24 December 2018 ("the section 4 notice") and that the 'Declaration of Intended Acquisition' dated 24 December 2018 under s 8 of the ("the s 8 declaration") concerning Lot 172 published in the Penang State Gazette are null and void.

[2] The reasons for my decision are stated below.

Background

[3] Lot 172 is registered in the names of the applicants as trustees at least since 14 March 2018 as stated in the registered title. On 10 January 2019 it was published in the Penang State Gazette ("the Gazette") the s 4 notice and the s 8 declaration, both of which carry the date 24 December 2018, under the hand of the Deputy Director of land and Mines of the State of Penang. The s 4 notice and the s 8 declaration both specifically state the purpose of the acquisition as follows:

economic development under para 3(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 468) to wit an Access Route

[4] Section 3 (1)(b) of the LAA reads as follows:

The State Authority may acquire any land which is needed - by any person or corporation for any purpose which in the opinion of the State Authority is beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the public generally or any class of the public.

[5] A s 4 notice is in Form A and is published in the Gazette upon the State Authority being satisfied that any land in any locality in the State is likely to be needed for any of the purposes referred to in s 3 of the LAA . And when the State Authority decides that any land is in fact needed for any of the purposes referred to in s 3, a s 8 declaration which is in Form D must be published in the Gazette. According to s 8(3) of the such declaration is conclusive evidence that all the land referred to in Form D is needed for the purpose specified therein:in the instant case the land is acquired for "economic development".

[6] The applicants filed the application for leave to commence judicial review for the said reliefs on 8 April 2019. Leave was granted on 13 May 2019 and the matter was then fixed for the substantive application vide notice of hearing dated 13 May 2019. The grounds advanced for the said reliefs can be summarised as follows:

(i) an "access route" on part of Lot 172 cannot be "economic development" under the s 3(1)(b) of the LAA ;

(ii) the acquisition for the construction of an access route is to serve a private purpose and the use of neighbouring lands for such private purpose is ultra viress 3(1)(b) of the LAA ;

(iii) the acquisition for the construction of an access route is to serve a private purpose and the use of neighbouring lands for such private purpose is illegal, irrational, unfair, an unreasonable exercise of administrative power and/or authority and an abuse of administrative power and/or authority;

(iv) the acquisition for the construction of an access route is to serve a private purpose and the use of neighbouring lands for such private purpose violates, undermines and/or was intentionally done to avoid the provisions of Part 28, or specifically ss 387 to 395 of the National Land Code;

(v) the acquisition for the construction of an access route is to serve a private purpose and the use of neighbo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top