Abdul Malek Ahmad FCJ:

We heard these nine motions together. They were all for extension of time to appeal to the Federal Court. The first five motions involved land acquisition matters in Melaka, the sixth, seventh and ninth land acquisition matters in Negeri Sembilan and the eighth a land acquisition matter in Johore.

Appearing for the first eight motions were Robert Lazar and Teh Lay Kheng and for the ninth motion DP Naban and Lambert Rasaratnam. The respondents were represented by the three respective state legal advisers; Nor Bee Ariffin for Melaka, Hinshawati Shariff for Negeri Sembilan and Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid for Johore.

The background facts were the same for all. All land acquisition appeals had been filed in the Court of Appeal but in view of certain conflicting decisions as to the proper forum for those appeals, there appears to be some confusion as to whether they should be heard in the Court of Appeal or only in this court. Hence the necessity for filing the motions. In addition, the land acquisition appeal pertaining to the eighth motion had already been transferred from the Court of Appeal to the Federal Court on 15 January 2002. The question arising from that appeal in Tanah Sutera Development Sdn. Bhd. v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor Bahru[2000] 2 CLJ 14, and 96 other land acquisition appeals dealt with on that same date, was whether the transfer of land acquisition appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Federal Court was the correct and proper procedure.

The confusion probably began when s. 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (hereinafter "the CJA") was amended by way of a blanket amendment in Act A886, which came into force on 24 June 1994, where the words "Supreme Court", wherever they appear in the CJA, were replaced by the words "Court of Appeal". The said s. 67 provided for the jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any judgment or order of any High Court in any civil matter. This would mean that from 24 June 1994, all appeals in civil matters from the High Court lay to the Court of Appeal instead of the Supreme Court and that included land acquisition cases. On the same date, videAct A885, the Federal Constitution (hereinafter "the Constitution") was amended to establish the Court of Appeal from 24 June 1994.

The Land Acquisition Act 1960 (hereinafter "the LAA") was amended videAct A999, which was published on 31 July 1997, to come into force on such date as the Minister may, with the approval of the National Land Council, by notification in the Gazette appoint. However, it was also provided that the amendments in ss. 23, 24, and 25 and para. 27(b) of Act A999shall apply only to land acquisition cases referred to the court after the coming into force of the amending Act. Eventually, 1 March 1998 was appointed as the date of coming into force of Act A999.

The amendment to s. 49(1) of the LAAby para. 27(b) of Act A999deleted the words "unless the amount awarded by the court exceeds five thousand ringgit" appearing in the proviso. The result is that where the decision comprises an award of compensation, there shall be no appeal therefrom.

Paragraph 27(a) of Act A999amended s. 49(1) of the LAAby substituting for the words "Supreme Court" the words "Court of Appeal and to the Federal Court". This is the amendment relevant to our problem.

Contributing to the earlier confusion was the notion that it was once thought that the proper forum for appeals in land acquisition cases was the Court of Appeal as seen in Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Melaka Tengah v. Mat Nayan bin Tak[1996] 2 CLJ 618. There, the respondent landowner referred his claim for compensation to the High Court after being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by his collector. The High Court increased the award to RM44,964.71 and the district land administrator sought leave to appeal against the 174.44 per cent increase.

The question before the Court of Appeal was whether leave was required to appeal in a land acquisition