Statutory authority supersedes any expectation of entitlement in land allocation.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant from an order of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") of the Taiping High Court dated 19 May 2015, dismissing the appellants application for judicial review of the decision of the 1st respondent dated 16 April 2014 to reject the appellants application for a piece of land known as Lot No. 151 A4 (Tanah Bebas Landasan Keretapi Kuala Sepetang) ("the impugned decision").

[2] Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the evidence before us, we allowed the appeal. We now give the detailed reasons for our decision.

Fact Of The Case

[3] The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows:-

(a) The genesis of the disputes may be traced back to the event which occurred in 1 August 1979, when the appellant applied to Keretapi Tanah Melayu ("KTM") to occupy a piece of land known as lot No. 151 A4 (Tanah Bekas Landasan Keretapi Kuala Sepetang). KTM agreed to let the said piece of land to the appellant. An agreement was signed and rental up to RM230.40 was paid.

(b) On 29 September 1973, the applicants application to build a building on the said piece of land was approved by Majlis Tempatan Port Weld (Renamed as Majlis Perbandaran Taiping since 1 September 1979). Later, the applicant built on the said land a building to dry fish.

(c) The applicant paid assessment and electricity bills to Majlis Bandaran Taiping until 2014. The applicant averred that he wasstill staying on the said lot until 2014.

(d) On 5 January 2011, the Menteri Besar of Perak announced that the KTM land would be given to those dwellers occupying the KTM reserve land. On 18 October 2011, the applicant wrote a letter to the Menteri Besar of Perak complaining that his name was not in the list prepared by Pejabat Tanah Larut Matang Dan Selama ("the 1st respondent").

(f) On 25 May 2013, the appellant approached one Datuk Hj Abd Mukti Hj Abd Rahim. Datuk Hj Abd Mukti later wrote a letter to Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Perak (PTG) ("the 2nd respondent") about the appellants case.

(g) On 27 June 2013, the 2nd respondent informed Datuk Hj Abd Mukti Hj Abd Rahim that the appellants application was approved.

(h) However, on 16 April 2014, the 1st respondent informed the appellant that his application was rejected. By a letter dated 16 June 2014, the 1st respondent explained to the 2nd respondent (PTG) that the lot applied by the appellant was already given to one Chah Ibrahim because the said lot was occupied by her late husband since 1988.

(i) The appellant, being dissatisfied with the decision of the 1st respondent, had filed an application for judicial review, seeking an order of certiorari to quash the impugned decision. As stated earlier, the learned JC dismissed the appellant application with costs. Hence, this appeal.

Findings Of The High Court

[4] The learned JCs reasoning in dismissing the appellants application for judicial review can be summarised as follows:

(a) The facts that:

(i) there was in existence a rental agreement between the appellant and KTM for which KTM agreed to let the appellant occupythe said land;

(ii) Majlis Tempatan Port Weld had approved the appellants application to erect a building on the said land;

(iii) the appellant had been paying asses