Arulanandom J:

This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs, Yew Lean Finance Development (M) Sdn. Bhd., against the Director of Lands and Mines, Penang, seeking the following orders: -

(1) A declaration that the said GN 23 is null and void as it fails to specify for what purpose the plaintiffs said lands are being acquired.

(2) Alternatively that the subsequent failure of the State Authority to particularise the purpose of acquisition further rendered the said notification inoperative.

(3) A further declaration that the said GN 23 is published in a form which is ultra vires ss. 7,8 & 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore void.

(4) A declaration that the purported acquisition is of no effect because it was based on a misreading of GN 35.

(5) A declaration that the purported acquisition is of no effect because the wrong motive was applied in acquiring the lands which are not needed for the Prai Barrage project or are required for some vague purpose.

(6) A declaration that the said GN 23 is void and of no effect as it was signed by a person who is not a designated person.

(7) Damages resulting from the publication of the said GN 23 and subsequent actions of the authorities concerned and further delays consequential thereto.

(8) Costs.

The brief facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiffs were the proprietors of Lot 530(1) and Lot 530(2) Mukim 14, Province Wellesley North, hereinafter called the said lands which they purchased in about August 1972 with the intention of developing the said lands as a housing complex. The lands were allegedly charged to one SNASA Annamalai Chettiar for $250,000 with interest at 12 per annum. On 1 November 1972 the plaintiffs' architect submitted a plan for such a housing complex to the Majlis Daerah Utara, Butterworth but on 20 February 1973 the Council's architect rejected the plan on the grounds that the said lands were being acquired under Penang Gazette

Notification 23 of 1973 published on the 1 February 1973. The said Notification GN 23 of 1973 stated that the lands were being acquired for residential, industrial and public purpose. Subsequently the land was acquired and this suit is the result of that acquisition.

The plaintiffs' complaint about the whole acquisition was that they wrote in March 1974 to the State Secretary Penang enquiring for what particular purpose the plaintiffs' said lands were being acquired and that they received no reply. Further they said GN 23/73 was not signed by a designated person under the Land Acquisition Act and that the lands were being acquired for some vague purpose andtherefore the notice of intended acquisition was null and void.

Further the plaintiffs claimed that as a result of the wrongful acquisition of the said lands the plaintiffs suffered damage, namely, (1) Ex-gratia payments for removal of squatters, etc. $40,000, (2) Architects' fees if housing scheme not implemented $38,000, (3) Earth filling and bund filling $25,000, (4) Interest to the said Annamalai Chettiar at 12 as from date of Gazette Notification and continuing $45,000, (5) Commission for brokers $53,600.

At the trial the Managing Director of the plaintiffs gave evidence regarding the special damages. He further stated that the total amount of interest paid up to Chettiar was $78,400 and in his evidence he also said that he paid compensation to one squatter who had a pig sty and squatter house but admitted there were still squatters on the land.

Evidence was given for the defendants by various officers who had been involved with the whole scheme which resulted in acquisition of the said lands. Piara Singh (DW1) told the court he prepared the report as ACLR Butterworth to acquire about 338 acres of land adjoining Mak Mandin and this included the plaintiffs' lands. He stated that the plaintiffs' lands were coconut lands and were very good and firm lands and could be put for development straightaway and did not need filling. He further stated that there were 35