The mandatory time limitation stipulated in s. 8(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 necessitates that any public acquisition declaration lapses if no award is made within the two-year period following the declaration's publication.

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

This appeal is brought against orders of certiorari and other consequential relief granted by Alauddin J, in the High Court at Alor Setar, quashing the compulsory acquisition by the appellants of a piece of land held under Lot 284, in the Mukim of Sungei Petani ("the said land"). The facts and background against which this appeal rests are as follows.

At all times material to this appeal, one Muthukaruppan Chettiar and two others were the registered proprietors of the said land. On 8 May 1995, the respondent company entered into a written agreement with the registered proprietors of the said land to purchase it from them at a sum of RM18,915,000. Following the agreement, the respondent, for the purpose of protecting its interest pending completion of the sale, entered a caveat against the register document title to the said land. Some three months later, on 3 August 1995, the first appellant caused to be published in the Gazette, a declaration compulsorily acquiring the said land on behalf of the Permodalan

Kedah Berhad for a commercial purpose. This was followed by an inquiry held on 18 October 1995 ("the first inquiry") on the award of compensation for the acquisition. On the same date, that it to say, 18 October 1995, the second respondent issued a notice in the statutory Form H under s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("the Act") setting out the award of compensation. Neither notice of the first inquiry nor of the award was given to the instant respondent. By two originating motions the registered proprietors and the respondent moved separately to have the first inquiry and the award quashed by certiorari. By an order made under each application on 3 August 1996, Mohd Ariff Othman J, issued certiorari quashing the first inquiry and the award of compensation made by the second respondent. He also issued mandamus directing a second inquiry for the purpose of making a fresh award. Following the making of these orders, a second inquiry was held on 4 August 1997 and a second award of compensation was made on 6 August 1997. The respondent then commenced the proceedings which form the subject matter of the present appeal. It may be added for completeness that on 24 October 1996, that is to say, between the making of the relevant orders by Mohd Ariff Othman J, and the date of the second award, the respondent had itself registered as proprietor of the said land.

In support of its application before Alauddin J, to have the acquisition of the said land quashed, the respondent relied on the provisions of s. 8(4) of the Act. It is not a provision which formed part of the Act when it was first passed. It was added much later, in 1984, by way of Act A575/84. Until its introduction, the delay occasioned by the relevant authority in compulsorily acquiring land was dealt with at common law according to the facts and circumstances of each case. See, Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Pulau Pinang v. Ong Gaik Kee ; Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kuantan v. Oriental Rubber & Palmoil Sdn. Bhd. .

In order to appreciate the nature of the appellant's case as advanced in the court below and before us in this appeal, it is necessary to set out s. 8 in its entirety. This is what it says:

8(1) When the State Authority decides that any of the lands referred to in section 7 are needed for any of the purposes referred to in section 3, a declaration in Form D shall be published in the Gazette.

(2) A copy of the list of lands referred to in section 7(b), amended, if necessary, in accordance with the decision of the State Authority, shall be included as a schedule to the declaration in Form D.

(3) A declaration in Form D shall be conclusive evidence that all the scheduled land referred to therein is needed for the purpose specified therein.

(4) A declaration under subsection (1) shall lapse and cease to be of any effect on the expiry of two