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

2023 MarsdenLR 473

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LEE FONG KEE – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCVC-1312-07-2021]



Petitioner Advocates:Pretam Singh Darshan Singh,Farizah Mahmud,Amritpreet Kaur Randhawa ,Respondent Advocate: Norazlin Mohamad Yusoff

The imposition of leasehold status on land originally held in freehold was ruled ultra vires, infringing upon property rights, necessitating reversion to freehold status.

Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Sections 197 and 76 - Application for declaration of land tenure - The Respondent's imposition of a 99-year leasehold condition on land originally held in freehold was deemed ultra vires - The Applicant contended that the land should revert to freehold status based on its historical title - The court found that the Respondent's actions infringed upon property rights and lacked legal authority. (Paras 1, 4, 19)

(B) Property Rights - The distinction between freehold and leasehold ownership is significant, affecting ownership rights and property value - The reduction in status from freehold to leasehold was ruled as an unlawful interference with property rights. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant sought to revert land originally held as freehold (Lots 153 and 4026) to freehold status after it was re-alienated as leasehold. The Respondent defended the re-alienation based on statutory authority.

Findings of Court:
The Respondent's reduction of land status was ultra vires and contravened constitutional property rights, necessitating the reversion of the land to freehold status.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the Respondent's actions in changing land tenure and the implications for property rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Respondent's discretion in land matters is not unfettered and must adhere to legal standards; actions exceeding authority are invalid.

Result: The Application was allowed with costs.

Table of Content
1. background on property status and transactions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. contentions regarding land status reversion. (Para 8 , 9)
3. court's observations on land alienation process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. legal precedents on ultra vires actions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. impact of leasehold status on property rights. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. consistency of respondent's conduct in similar cases. (Para 20 , 21)
7. final decision and binding effect on related cases. (Para 22)
Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") seeking, inter alia, for a declaration that the 99-year leasehold condition imposed by the Respondent on the continuation title pursuant to its subdivision and re-alienation, which originally bore a freehold status, was invalid as ultra vires; and an order for the Respondent to cancel the "leasehold" status on the continuation title pursuant to its subdivision and re-alienation, and to issue a new continuation title with "freehold" status, registered in the Applicant's name.

The Factual Background

[2] Lots 153 and 4026, originally owned by Edinburgh Rubber Estates Limited, were two pieces of land that enjoyed freehold status. In January 1973, Edinburgh Rubber Estates Limited sold Lots 153 and 4026 to Sharikat Permodalan Kebangsaan Berhad ("SPKB").

[3] SPKB then surrendered Lots 153 and 4026 to the State Authority pursuant to s 197 of the National Land Code ("National Land Code"), and then for subdivision and re-alienation pursuant to s 76 of the National Land Code The provisions read:

Section 197 - Applications for approval of surrender of whole.

(1) Any application for approval by a proprietor wishing to surrender the whole of the land comprised in his title shall be made in writing to the Land Administrator in Form 12A, and shall be accompanied by:

(a) such fee as may be prescribed;

(b) all such written consents to the making thereof as are required under paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of s 196; and

(c) unless the proprietor alleges that it is for any reason incapable of production, the issue document of title to the land.

(2) Where the proprietor is unable to produce the issue document of title because it is in the hands of any person or body as chargee or lien-holder, the application shall be accompanied instead by a copy of a request by the proprietor, served on that person or body under sub-section (2) of s 244 or, as the case may be, sub-section (4) of s 281, for the production of the document at the Land Office within fourteen days of the date thereof.

(3) Upon receipt of the application, the Land Administrator shall endorse, or cause to be endorsed, a note thereof on the register document of title to the land.

(4) Where the application relates to estate land:

(a) the Land Administrator shall refer it to the Estate Land Board established under s 214A for its recommendations; and

(b) the Secretary of the Estate Land Board shall convey its recommendations as expeditiously as possible to the Land Administrator.

Section 76 - Meaning of alienation

The alienation of State land under this Act shall consist of its disposal by the State Authority:

(a) for a term not exceeding ninety-nine years;

(aa) in perpetuity:

(i) where the Federal Government requires the State Authority to cause a grant in perpetuity to be made to the Federal Government or to a public authority or where the Federal Government and the Government of the state agree to make a grant in perpetuity to the Federal Government;

(ii) where the State Authority is satisfied that the land is to be used for a public purpose; or

(iii) where the State Authority is satisfied that there are special circumstances which render it appropriate to do so;

(b) in consideration of the payment of an annual rent;

(c) in consideration, unless the State Authority thinks fit to exempt therefrom in any particular case, of the payment of a premium;

(d) subject, unless the State Authority otherwise directs pursuant to sub-section (5) of s 52,

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