Zulkefli Makinuddin J:

[1] This is an application by the applicant chargor ("applicant") to set aside the order for sale of the applicant's land made by the first respondent as the land administrator and to seek a declaration that the charge is null and void. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

[2] Tymeju Management Services Sdn Bhd ("the borrower company") and the second respondent entered into a share margin trading and financing agreement ("the agreement"). Under the agreement the second respondent is empowered to acquire and dispose of securities on behalf of the borrower company. All shares traded and comprised in the mortgage securities are duly registered in the name of the second respondent and are retained in its custody as security for the loan as required by the second respondent. Additionally, a third party-party charge on the applicant's land was executed between the applicant and the second respondent for the credit facilities granted by the second respondent to the borrower company. Upon application by the second respondent as chargee of the said land the first respondent as the Land Administrator granted an order for sale of the said land under s 263 of the National Land Code ("NLC").

[3] The applicant has raised a number of grounds or issues in support of his application. In my view the relevant issues that need to be dealt with by this court are as follows:

[4] Firstly, the applicant has alleged that the order for sale was obtained irregularly by the second respondent. The applicant contended that the first respondent, the land administrator's notice of enquiry did not conform to the provision of s 27 of the NLC which states as follows:

Before holding any enquiry, the Land Administrator shall:

(a)Publish in such manner as he may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case a notice in Form 2A; and

(b)Serve on every person or body who is to his knowledge interested in the subject matter thereof a copy of that notice to which shall be appended the additional notice set out in the supplement to that Form.

[5] To deal with this issue raised by the applicant it is necessary to refer to the background facts of the case gathered from the affidavits and documentary exhs filed by the parties in this case as follows: Upon an application by the second respondent for an order for sale under s 260 NLC, the land administrator appointed a time and venue for an enquiry, pursuant to s 261(1) NLC. In compliance with s 261(1)(c) NLC, the land administrator issued a summons, requiring the chargor to appear at the enquiry and show cause why an order for sale should not be made. The summons was dated 30 May 2001, and required the chargor to attend an enquiry on 2 July 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the first enquiry"). The summons was served by an officer of the land administrator by leaving the same at the premises of the chargor on 7 June 2001. There was also an advertisement in The Malay Mail on 27 June 2001, effected by the second respondent upon the Land Administrator's instructions informing of the date of the first enquiry. Ample notice was therefore given. Nevertheless, the chargor and/or her solicitors failed to attend the first enquiry. The land administrator adjourned the enquiry to 26 July 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the second enquiry"). The land administrator did not give notice of the new date fixed by the land administrator to the chargor. However, the solicitors for the second respondent issued a letter dated 23 July 2001 to the chargor, enclosing the summons (with the first enquiry date), informing in the said cover letter of the second enquiry date, ie, 26 July 2001. This was acknowledged received by the chargor and a contemporaneous note made by the second respondent solicitor's despatch clerk shows that the letter was received by the chargor at about 11am on 25 July 2001. The chargor and her husband attended at the second enquiry on 26 July 2001.

[6] It is my finding that the first