Zaleha Zahari J:

[1] The 1st defendant was awarded a concession to build the Traffic Dispersal Ring Road linking Kajang and its surrounding areas to Kuala Lumpur ("the project"). The lands which are the subject matter of this application were amongst the lands affected by the project. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants named had failed to discharge their duties and responsibilities in accordance with law.

[2] This originating summons is grounded on the basis that the plaintiffs fell into two groups, ie, those whose lands/properties were the subject of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("the Act") and those who continued to stay on the lands upon expiration of their lease. All of them sought for the following: that the defendants were liable to pay to each plaintiff the sum of RM350,000 as well as to expeditiously make available and allot to each of them a suitable piece of land of 3,500 square feet within the nearby vicinity at the defendants costs and expense, (para F). Pending the determination of these proceedings the defendants were to be restrained from demolishing or trespassing on to the plaintiffs' buildings or land (para G).

[3] Paragraphs H to Q, were posed in the form of questions. Whether the plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation upon the expiration of their lease for their leases to be extended by the 4th defendant pursuant to s. 228 of the National Land Code (the Code) as the plaintiffs had not contravened any of the conditions of their lease (para I)? Whether the 4th defendant pursuant to art. 8 read with art. 13 of the Federal Constitution was required to automatically extend the plaintiffs' leases upon expiration of their lease (para J?) Whether the 4th defendant was required to serve "Form K" on the plaintiffs before taking formal possession of the plaintiffs lands/properties under the Act (paragraph K)? Whether the notice of eviction dated 30 September 2003 was valid and of full effect (para L)? Pending compliance of s. 22 of the Act by the 4th defendant, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to continue to occupy their lands/properties notwithstanding the lands/properties having been acquired (para M)? Whether the extension of several expired leases at Sg Chua (not including the plaintiffs) whose application for extension of lease were pending for several years contravenes art. 8 of the Federal Constitution (para N)? Whether the 4th defendant had the right to evict the plaintiffs before payment of compensation to the plaintiffs or payment of the award into court (para O)? Whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendant had the right to enter the plaintiffs' lands or properties or any part thereof for the carrying out of any works before formal possession was taken by the 4th defendant and the handing over the lands to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants (para P)? Whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendant were required to pay the compensation awarded into the 4th defendant's account, or pay the sum into court before commencing any works on the plaintiffs' lands or properties (para Q)?

The Striking Out Applications

[4] The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants vide encl. (10), whilst the 4th defendant vide encl. (22), applied to strike out the plaintiffs application based on common grounds. In respect of the plaintiffs whose leases had expired, it was alleged that they did not have any right or interest recognised by law and therefore had no locus standi to commence these proceedings. The defendants' case was that the prayers sought for by this category of plaintiffs was not within the court's jurisdiction to make, but falls under the jurisdiction of the State Authority.

[5] As for the plaintiffs whose lands were subjected to acquisition proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act for the purposes of the project, the defendants case was that s. 8(1), 8(2), 37(1)(a)-(d) and s. 68 of the Act applies. These plaintiffs ceased to have any interest in respect of these acquired lands.