JUDGMENTBY: KNIGHT AG CJ

(with whom Tan Ah Tah and Rigby JJ. agreed): -- This is an appeal from a decision of the learned trial Judge following a reference to his Court under section 19 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Chapter 248 of the Laws). It is admitted that certain land, which lies off Macpherson Road, was acquired by the Government at the end of 1952 and after he had conducted an inquiry as to the quantum of compensation which should be payable and the persons entitled to receive it, the Collector awarded the sum of $ 5,794 to a Mr. Chen (with which I am not concerned in these proceedings) and$ 104,359.20 to a Madam Lee Guay Eng -- the respondent in the Court below and here. As the latter part of his award was contested, the Collector very properly paid the sum of $ 104,359.20 into Court and in due course the learned trial Judge found in favour of Madam Lee and directed that the compensation should be paid to her in preference to the appellant, who also appeared in the proceedings in the Court below. Perhaps I should add that neither party has appealed against the quantum of compensation awarded.

Throughout the course of this appeal (which was argued for nearly four days) until the very end of his address, Mr. Muthuswamy, for the appellant conceded that he accepted each and every finding of fact made by the learned trial Judge. Just before concluding he admittedly sought to correct what he had said earlier as regards Madam Sng ever having been possessed of any part of the acquired land but his main argument and the one on which this appeal really depends is whether the procedure in the Court below was proper and in particular, whether all the parties interested in the land were given notice of those proceedings. In these circumstances it is irrelevant to set out the facts which were argued in the Court below as Mr. Muthuswamy is really only asking this Court to declare the proceedings in that Court a nullity. He also asks that Madam Lee be directed to pay back into Court the compensation she has received pending a rehearing under the Land Acquisition Ordinance.

If I understood Mr. Muthuswamy correctly -- and I must confess that at times I had the very greatest difficulty in following his arguments -- his first contention is that the trial Judge was wrong in not framing issues as he was asked to do at the trial by the appellants Counsel. It is true that in another and similar case ( Chia Wan Kiat v M Theynappa Ltd (1955) MLJ 198 issues were framed and in references such as this, which are really in the nature of an inter-pleader matter, I think it is better that they should be framed. But there is not one word which makes this obligatory in the Ordinance nor did Counsel in the Court below quote any authority in support of it. In my opinion it suffices to say that it would be quite ridiculous to upset the decision simply because issues were not framed.

The next, and far more substantial point, taken for the appellant is whether the proceedings were a nullity because the requirements of section 21 of the Ordinance were not complied with. It is not in dispute that the registered owners of the land are the estate of the late Lee Chin Seng and one Khoo Tiong Pan (from whom Madam Lee claims title by adverse possession) and from Schedule VII, which accompanied the Collectors reference to the Court it seems that notices were sent by post to which no acknowledgments were received. One of these notices, indeed, is merely shown as "posted." It is thus argued for the appellant that these persons must be "persons interested" under section 21 of the Ordinance, that they have not been properly served and that the proceedings below for this reason were a nullity.

Now this is a very strange objection for the appellant to take for if it should succeed and some person or persons be traced claiming to have an interest in the estate of Mr. Lee or Mr. Khoo (the latter can also with safety be presumed to be dead) it must, of cours

Click Here to Read the rest of this document