Raja Azlan Shah J:

This is a claim for costs and compensation for removal of squatters by the Kuala Lumpur Municipality.

The applicant, Pesurohjaya Ibu Kota, Kuala Lumpur, applied by way of originating summons for an order that the holding comprised under CTNo. 4744 on lotNo. 291, s. 46, situated at Lorong Gombak (hereinafter referred to as the 'said land') be attached and sold pursuant to the provisions of s. 50 of the Town Boards Enactment (Cap. 137) and regs. 10(2) and 10A(L) of the Essential (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969 to recover the sum of $338,378.45 being costs and expenses under reg. 10(2) and compensation under reg. 10A(1) and fees with interest thereon at the rate of 60er annum from 9 June 1970 until payment and costs of the application.

The facts of the case are as follows: The applicant is the Pesurohjaya Ibu Kota, Kuala Lumpur and the four respondents are the Public Trustee, Malaya for the Public Trustee, Singapore as administrator of the estate of Hardial Singh s/o Moher Singh, Harban Singh s/o Jagat Singh and Harban Singh s/o Jagat Singh and Talok Singh s/o Jagat Singh as personal representatives of the estate of Pritam Singh s/o Jagat Singh and Ng Chin Siu and Sons Rubber Estate Ltd.

The respondents are co-proprietors of the said land. The applicant caused the squatters to be removed from the said land, under the Essential (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969. The squatter huts were demolished on 30 November 1969. On 31 March 1970 the applicant served a bill for a sum of $307,609.45 on the co-proprietors of the said land. When the respondents did not settle the bill, a notice of demand dated 20 May 1970 was served on them. When the respondents still did not pay. a warrant of attachment was issued on 9 June 1970 pursuant to s. 47 of the Town Boards Enactment. However, the warrant of attachment could not be executed because there were no movable properties on the said land. The applicant thereupon made an application to this Court that the holding itself be attached to recover the costs, expenses and compensation. The applicant now claims an additional sum of $30,771 as fees payable in respect of the notice of demand and warrant of attachment.

The sum of $338,378.45 claimed is for the following:

(1) . Cost and expenses under reg. 10(2) - $13,522

(2) . Compensation under reg. 10A(1) - 294,084.45

(3) . Notice of demand - 1

(4) . Warrant of attachment fee - 30,770

227227227227227227227

$338,378.45

227227227227227227227

The respondents contend that the procedure adopted by the applicant is wrong in law because disputed questions of fact and law are involved. They further contend that reg. 10A is an amendment to the Essential (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations, as such it cannot be enforced against the respondents in respect of the squatter clearance carried out on 30 November 1969. The respondents agreed that the applicant incurred costs and expenses under reg. 10(2) of the 1969 Regulations. This amounts only to $13,523 and their liability if at all is only for this sum. There is also disagreement between respondents and the applicant as to the number of squatter families removed. Further, the respondents claim that the applicant is indebted to them for a sum of $310,375 being compensation for acquisition of 12,415 square feet of the respondents' land. This counter-claim has however been withdrawn.

I shall first deal with the retrospective nature of the amendment. The Essential (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969 came into force on 2 October 1969. On 24 February 1970 the Regulations were amended and were deemed to have come into force on 2 October 1969. Demolition work was done on 30 November 1969 i.e., before the amendment to the Regulations was made. But the respondents were billed on 31 March 1970 i.e. after the amendment.