Shaik Daud Ismail JCA:

The appellant is the registered owner of land known as HS(D) 66601 PT 2473 Mukim Setapak, Wilayah Persekutuan which consists of 487,533 square feet of land (the said land). The said land was registered in the appellant's name on 6 July 1990. At that material time all the four respondents and a number of others were living on the said land. The appellant purchased the land from one STLR Sdn Bhd who became the owner of the land on 26 October 1985. Prior to that date the land belonged to the government.

As the registered owner, the appellant filed a claim against the four respondents claiming that they were trespassers and prayed for vacant possession, mesne profits from 11 October 1993, until delivery of vacant possession, damages for trespass, interest and costs.

The respondents denied that they were trespassers. They contended that they were the lawful occupants of the said land as licensees coupled with equity and that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the equity. They also contend that their continuous occupation of the said land was known to or expressly and/or impliedly acquiesced and/or encouraged by the State Authority and/or Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, the predecessors of the appellant.

After a full and lengthy trial in which the learned judge traced the history of the said land, he came to the conclusion that on the facts before him, he was satisfied that the respondents were not squatters simpliciter but were in occupation of the said land as licensees and with the consent of the state authority that they could occupy or continue to occupy the said land. In the light of that finding the learned judge gave vacant possession to the appellant subject to the appellant compensating the four respondents for all costs incurred in the construction and renovation of their respective houses, or alternatively the costs of the present value of the said houses to be assessed by an independent valuer to be mutually agreed to by the parties or if they fail to agree, to be appointed by the court, and all costs incidental to relocating the respondents. The learned judge also rejected the appellant's claim for special damages on the ground that they have not been sufficiently proved.

On our perusal of the records of appeal and after considering the submissions of both learned counsel, we find ourselves unable to disagree with the findings of the learned judge. There were ample evidence before him to arrive at those conclusions.

The central issue before the court was the status of the respondents as far as the said land is concerned. The appellant contended all along that the respondents were squatters simpliciter and therefore they were trespassers on the said land. The respondents on the other hand, are not claiming any title to the said land. That the appellant is the registered owner of the said land is undisputed. The respondents while conceding that the appellant is now the registered owner, are contending that they are not squatters simpliciter but they occupied the said land with a licence in equity.

The said land appeared to have a chequered history. Initially the said land was a Malay Reserve Land but such status was cancelled. Based on the evidence of a land surveyor one Seah Kok Seang @ Sheah Si Ba, who testified as an expert witness, the learned judge accepted his expert testimony that the

Malay Reservation status was degazetted by Gazette Notification No 4851/ 1932 dated 22 June 1932. This was confirmed in a letter from the Director of Land & Mines dated 9 February, 1996. The respondents contend that when the appellant became the registered owner of the said land, it knew or ought to have known of the equity which had existed long before it became the owner. The respondents also contended that their continuous occupation of the said land was known to or expressly or impliedly acquiesced and/or encouraged by the State Authority or by Dewan Bandaraya. It is also in evidence