Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3045
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PENTADBIR TANAH DAN DAERAH PETALING & ORS – Appellant
Versus
BANDAR UTAMA CITY CORPORATION SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHE.... – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: B-01(A)-151-04-2016 & B-01(A)-152-04-2016]
Judicial review emphasizes authority act within fair and reasonable parameters; public expectations must be assessed against statutory mandates.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Sections related to compulsory acquisition and legitimate expectation – High Court ruling quashed; respondents acted unreasonably and abused discretion regarding land acquisition – Applicants expected return of land post-construction – Permanent closure assurances contravened by acquiescence to public interest – Respondents failed to substantiate claims of legitimate expectation (Paras 20-24, 26-28, 61, 80).
(B) Judicial Review – The scope of judicial review encompasses discretion in decision-making processes; not merits. (Paras 39-41).
Facts of the case: Applicants, developers, filed for judicial review to challenge the land acquisition by state respondents for public purposes, asserting rights over land due to prior engagements.
Findings of Court: The court found respondents breached legitimate expectations, acted beyond authority, and acquisition was not justified solely for public benefit, but for aiding private interests.
Issues: The court addressed legitimate expectations of land return, abuse of power by respondents, and application of estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: Court reaffirmed that public authorities must adhere to principles of fairness and reasonable expectation; abuse of power invalidates actions.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Introduction
[1] There are two appeals before us which were heard together. For convenience parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.
[2] Appeal No 151 is the 1st (Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah Petaling), 2nd (Kerajaan Negeri Selangor), 3rd (Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor) and 5th (Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Negeri Selangor) respondents' appeal. Appeal No 152 is the 6th respondent's (Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya) appeal.
[3] Both appeals were lodged by the respondents in respect of the decision made by the High Court on 17 March 2016 in allowing the applicants' application for judicial review to quash the decision of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to compulsorily acquire an area of 1,320 square meters of land which forms part of the whole land of the 2nd applicant (Bandar Utama Technology Park Sdn Bhd.) held under Grant No 54943, Lot 27680, Section 39, Bandar Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Selangor.
[4] After considering the written and oral submissions of the respective counsel and the records of appeal, we had unanimously allowed both the appeals. These are the reasons for our decision.
Background Facts
[5] The first applicant owned a few pieces of land in Mukim of Sungai Buloh, Selangor. It entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with the second applicant to develop the land into a mixed development township known as 'Bandar Utama'. The 2nd applicant purchased from the 1st applicant Lot 27680 located within Bandar Utama. The 2nd applicant is a fully owned subsidiary of the 1st applicant. They shared the same registered address at No 1, Dataran Bandar Utama, Bandar Utama, 47000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor.
[6] Prior to the development of Bandar Utama, the first applicant submitted a layout plan of the land to the 1st and 5th respondents for approval. It was duly approved.
[7] In 1991, the 5th respondent amended the layout plan in view of the development of an adjoining piece of land by Tropicana Golf & Country Resort Berhad ("Tropicana"). It was approved by the 1st respondent. The amendments by the 5th respondent were to provide an access in and out of the Tropicana's development through the 1st applicant's land. The access road was later known as Jalan Hilir. The 1st applicant was also required to construct Jalan Hilir at its own costs which is about RM2 million.
[8] Tropicana commenced its development during the development of Bandar Utama. In 1993, the first applicant and Tropicana entered into an agreement where the subject land was to be used as a temporary access in and out of Tropicana's development pending the completion of Jalan Hilir.
[9] The temporary access was connected through the 2nd applicant's private road, Jalan Tanjung on Lot 27680 and then the 4th respondent's land (LLM) which was previously acquired from the first applicant for the purpose of its use as part of the North Klang Valley Expressway (NKVE).
[10] The construction of Jalan Hilir was completed at the end of 1996. It was said that the 4th respondent granted an irrevocable licence as to the use of its land and gave assurance that the temporary access will be closed upon the completion of Jalan Hilir.
[11] However, the 2nd and 6th respondents continued directing the first applicant to keep the temporary access open pending Tropicana to connect its development to Jalan Hilir.
[12] In 2008, Tropicana completed connecting its development to Jalan Hilir. Despite the completion, the 1st applicant was not allowed to close the temporary access on the ground that the construction of a twin tunnel along Jalan Hilir had not been completed. It was completed in early 2009.
[13] On 28 August 2009, the first applicant terminated the agreement with Tropicana and closed the temporary access due to the traffic congestion along Jalan Tanjung and the temporary access.
[14] There were then discussion among Tropicana, the first applicant and the then Menteri Besar of Selangor. A proposal was put forth to construct a bypass w
