2014 MarsdenLR 2213

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KELAB RENANG PULAU PINANG – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH TIMUR LAUT PULAU PINANG & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: P-01-05-2009]

A private right of way under the National Land Code is intended solely for the benefit of the landowner, not for public access, and compensation must be provided when such rights affect others' property.

Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Sections 389(1), 390(1), 390(3), and 393(1) - Discretionary power of Land Administrator to grant private right of way - The right of way granted over the appellant's land consumed approximately 1/3 of it - The High Court found that Lot 418 is landlocked, but this was disputed as there was already an existing right of way - The Land Administrator's decision was deemed to have exceeded jurisdiction as it failed to account for existing access and no compensation was provided - The purpose of a private right of way is for the benefit of the proprietor and not for public use. (Paras 11, 20, 27)

(B) The appellant's contention was that the private right of way was actually a public right of way, leading to an unfair prejudicial impact on its land - The court ruled that excessive reliance on the public good should not infringe private property rights. (Paras 9, 21)

(C) The court highlighted that the discretion of the Land Administrator must be exercised reasonably and in proper circumstances. (Paras 21, 25)

Facts of the case:
The appeal revolves around the dispute over a private right of way granted to the second respondent over the appellant's land primarily for development purposes. The appellant contested the decision of the Land Administrator, arguing that Lot 418 had existing access and compensation for the right of way was not duly considered.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Land Administrator exceeded his jurisdiction by granting a right of way affecting about 1/3 of the appellant's land, and that an alternative access route existed which should have been taken into consideration.

Issues: The main issues included whether Lot 418 was landlocked, the validity of the private right of way granted, and the failure to consider compensation due to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that the right of way granted was predominantly for commercial benefit, exceeding proper use and impacting the private ownership rights of the appellant negatively, and also noted a breach of statutory compensation requirements.

Result: Appeal allowed, order of High Court set aside.