Briefly the facts in this case are as follows. The applicants are the registered owners of land CT 3528, Lot 541, Mukim Pedah, Jerantut (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land'). The said land was gazetted under s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 on 1 April 1982 vide State of Pahang Government Gazette Notification No 211. An inquiry as required under s 10 was held on 14 June 1983 at the conclusion of which an award was made in the sum of $70,000 per acre and that the total sum for the whole area amounted to $1,606,750. A notice in Form H dated 25 August 1983 making an offer of compensation as awarded was accordingly served on the applicants who then accepted it without any objection. As no payment had been made for more than a year, the applicants then wrote to the Pendaftar Tanah, Jerantut on 21 May 1985 (see exh FC 4(a) to the affidavit in support of the application at encl 1) asking for payment to be made as soon as possible. Then again on 30 July 1985 they wrote to the Pentadbir Tanah, Jerantut (see exh FC 4-B to encl 1). Still no payment was made. Then, on 20 July 1987, the Lembaga Kemajuan Negeri Pahang (the authority for which the land was acquired) wrote to all the applicants requesting for a meeting at Pejabat Daerah, Jerantut, to be held on 28 July 1987 with a view to discussing the question of making payment of the compensation. The result of the meeting was an offer of a scheme of payment in a manner as contained in a letter dated 2 January 1988 from the said Lembaga Kemajuan Negeri Pahang to the applicants wherein the said Lembaga proposed that the compensation would be paid by instalments within a period of four years beginning from January 1988 to August 1991 (see exh FC 10 to end 4). To this the applicants responded through a letter from their solicitors dated 15 January 1988 (see exh FC 5 to encl 1) demanding payment of compensation within five days from the date of the receipt of the said letter failing which proceedings for the recovery of the compensation would be instituted. As no payment was forthcoming, solicitors for the applicants filed a notice of originating motion on 1 March 1988 (encl 1) applying for a declaratory order:

(a) that the Collector has contravened art 13 of the Federal Constitution in failing to complete the acquisition proceedings in that he has failed to make payment as required under s 29 of the Land Acquisition Act;

(b) as a result of the contravention by the said Collector of the constitutional rights of the applicants, the applicants have suffered damage; and

(c) that the said Collector be required to pay the applicants the award of the sum of $1,606,750 and damages in the form of interest at the rate of 8% pa under s 32 of the Land Acquisition Act from 25 August 1983 to 25 February 1988 amounting to four and a half years (4½ years) of $578,430 and continuing.

The first point that needs examination is whether, in view of the circumstances of this case, it is necessary to call into question art 13 of the Federal Constitution. There has been a decision on the interpretation of s 10 of the Land Acquisition Act where the delay is in respect of holding the inquiry for the purposes of determining the quantum of the award and that art 13 of the Federal Constitution was found unnecessary to assist the court in the way of seeking a solution. The learned Chief Justice Tun Salleh Abas as he then was in the case of Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Penang v Ong Gaik Kee [1983] 2 MLJ 35 (at p 37) had this to say:

With respect we do not think that it is necessary to go so far as to invoke cl (2) of art 13. This clause lays down the constitutional standard of an expropriatory law so that 'no law shall provide for compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation'. We do not think that the constitutionality of the Land Acquisition Act is an issue here. No challenge is made by anyone against the Act for not providing adequate compensation, or in any