SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 MarsdenLR 1222

(2010) 1 CLJ 625
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
HISHAMUDIN MOHD YUNUS J

SYARIKAT PENGANGKUTAN KESEJAHTERAAN SDN BHD & ANOR
Versus
TENAGA NASIONAL BHD; NG AH BOON (THIRD PARTY)

(CIVIL SUIT NO: S3-22-610-1998)
Decided On : 22 JUNE 2009

JUDGMENT

Hishamudin Mohd Yunus J:

[1] This is a writ action by the plaintiffs against the defendant for, among others, the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that the defendant's use of the plaintiffs' land is illegal null and void ab initio;

(b) a declaration that the payment of RM86,722.33 paid by the defendant to one Ng Ah Boon as compensation for the defendant's occupation of an area of 11,302 square feet of the plaintiffs' land is illegal, null and void; and

(c) damages.

[2] There is also a claim by the defendant against the third party, Ng Ah Boon. The defendant's claim against the third party is for an order for the third party to indemnify the defendant in the event the court were to give judgment against the defendant and award damages to the plaintiffs.

[3] At the conclusion of the trial I had allowed the plaintiff's claim with costs; with damages to be assessed by the registrar. And I had dismissed the defendant's claim against the third party with costs.

[4] A company called Noble Idea Sdn Bhd (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Noble Idea') was the registered owner of a parcel of land in the Mukim of Cheras, District of Ulu Langat, Selangor. This parcel of land is known as C.T. No. 22937, Lot No. 2888, Mukim of Cheras, District of Hulu Langat. By a sale and purchase agreement dated 11 April 1992, the the first plaintiff purchased a portion of the land with an area of 1.038 acre from Noble Idea at a price of RM320,000.

[5] Prior to the purchase, the first plaintiff had carried out a search on the land title at the land office and the record on the title did not show that the land had been acquired or occupied by the defendant for its purposes pursuant to the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('the Act').

[6] The first plaintiff paid Noble Idea the full purchase price; and on the strength of the agreement and payment, the first plaintiff lodged a caveat in respect of the land on 23 May 1992.

[7] The land was accordingly registered in the name of the first plaintiff on 6 May 1996; and the first plaintiff was in due course issued by the land office with a separate title for the portion bought. The first plaintiff's portion is now held under a new title known as Grant No. 39169, Lot 244247, Mukim of Cheras, District of Hulu Langat.

[8] At the time of purchase, the category of land use of the land was that of 'agriculture'. The first plaintiff intended to use the land as a petrol station. So, the first plaintiff applied to the State Authority of Selangor for the category of land use of the land to be converted from that of 'agriculture' to that of 'building'. This application was approved by the State Authority on 21 August 1996.

[9] The first plaintiff then by a sale and purchase agreement dated 27 March 1997 sold the land to the second plaintiff at a price of RM4,275,000.

[10] The second plaintiff, however, subsequent to the purchase, caused the land to be surveyed, and their surveyor discovered that an area of 11,302 feet ("the disputed area") had been occupied by the defendant as part of its project known as 'Projek Aliran Elektrik 275/132 KV dari Pudu Ulu ke Serdang' ('the Pudu Ulu - Serdang Project').

[11] The defendant, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, is a corporation licensed under s. 9 of the Act. By virtue of the licence issued by the Director General of Electricity Supply, the defendant is empowered, among others, 'to place, lay, carry or maintain any posts, cables or wires for the purpose of erecting and installing supply lines and other installation or equipment on/along, through, under or across any land, inaccordance with the provisions of the Act.' But the exercise of this power is subject to the provisions of the Act.

[12] The second plaintiff discovered that there were electric lines and cables running across the disputed area on poles built by the defendant. The second plaintiff informed the first plaintiff of what they saw. The first plaintiff, however, either at the time of the purchase from Noble Idea or at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top