The court reaffirmed that lawful land acquisition requires strict adherence to statutory protocols; failure to comply renders acquisition and possession unlawful.

[1] This judgment is prepared pursuant to s 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 , as our learned brother, Justice Prasad Sandosham Abraham, FCJ had since retired.

[2] For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court. The applicant will be referred to as the defendant and the respondent will be referred to as the plaintiff.

[3] The defendant filed notice of motion pursuant to r 137 of the Rules of the Federal 1995 (r 137) to review and set aside the decision of the Federal Court dated 21 November 2012 which dismissed the defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. The defendant also applied for the following orders:

(1) the application for leave to appeal dated 18 June 2012 (the earlier application) be reheard;

(2) stay of any proceeding pursuant to the decision of this Court given on 12 December 2012; and

(3) that costs shall be in the cause.

Background Facts

[4] This case has a rather long history consisting of events and a number of Court actions which took place as far back as the year 1956. The plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia having its registered office at 9th Floor, Bangkok Bank Building, Jalan Bandar, Kuala Lumpur.

[5] As at 19 July 1956, the plaintiff was the registered owner and in possession of the entire 700 acres 3 roods originally held under CT 12530.

[6] By a Gazette Notification No 401 dated 19 July 1956 (GN 401/56), it was notified in the Selangor Government Gazette of 26 July 1956, that under s 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Enactment (Cap 140) (the Enactment), an area of land measuring 225 acres from the land held under CT 12530 ('the 225 acres') was likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, a Diplomatic Enclave. This was followed by a Gazette Notification No 557 dated 20 October 1956 (GN 577/56), where it was declared that under s 6(i) of the Enactment, the 225 acres was needed for a public purpose, to wit, a Diplomatic Enclave.

[7] On 5 November 1956, the plaintiff received a Notice dated 31 October 1956 (the Notice) stating that the Government intended to take possession of the 225 acres under ss 9(i) and (iv) and 10(i) of the Enactment. The Notice stated, inter alia, that all person who were interested in the 225 acres were to appear personally or by agent before the Collector on 20 November 1956 at 9.30am, at the office of the Collector at Kuala Lumpur to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests and their objections, if any, to the measurements made under s 8 of the Enactment.

[8] Although, GN 401/56 and GN 577/56 were in respect of only the 225 acres, at the hearing on 20 November 1956 before the Collector, the plaintiff was given a plan showing the areas to be acquired measuring 250 acres of land held under CT 12530 (the 250 acres). The plaintiff raised various objections, and at the plaintiff's request, the hearing was postponed to 27 November 1956.

[9] On 27 November 1956, at the hearing before the Collector, the plaintiff made a claim for compensation of RM13,000.00 per acre. At this hearing, the