Eusoffe Abdoolcader J:

The crucial issue involved

Has the Court jurisdiction to grant equitable relief against the forfeiture of alienated land effected under the National Land Code 1965in the face of its express enactment? That is the basic issue arising for consideration and determination in these two joint appeals involving the forfeiture of a substantial parcel of land to the State Authority of Johor for nonpayment of land rent. As we are primarily concerned in this matter with the provisions of the National Land Code (`the Code'), to obviate tautology all statutory references in this judgment will be to the Code unless otherwise specifically indicated.

Exordium: epitome of events

In December 1966 some 20,680 acres of land in the District of Kota Tinggi, Johor, were alienated under s. 76 by the State Authority of Johor to Johor Sugar Plantation & Industries Bhd. (`the company') as registered proprietor for a term of 99 years and were then charged by the company to United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd. (`the bank'), to secure banking facilities under three charges, the amount outstanding in respect thereof in November 1977 being over RM5 million carrying further interest. The company alleges it has expended some RM18 million to develop the land as a sugar-cane plantation and an integrated sugar refinery.

The affidavits filed disclose that the rent payable under s. 76(b) as consideration for the alienation and due to the State Authority for the year 1977 was not paid although the arrangement between the company and the bank appears to have been that if the former was unable to make payment it should then refer to the latter, but it did not do so notwithstanding the statutory notice of demand in Form 6A issued and caused to be served on the company by the Collector of Land Revenue, Kota Tinggi (`the Collector') under the provisions of s. 97(1)and the fact that the company had previously assured the bank that it would be able to raise the necessary funds for this purpose within the period stipulated in the Collector's notice. The Collector had also simultaneously by reason of the provisions of s. 98(1) .caused to be served on the bank as chargee a copy of the notice in Form 6A to which was appended the additional notice set out in the supplement theretop

As there was no compliance with the notice in Form 6A by either the company or the bank within the stipulated period of three months, the Collector in accordance with s. 100by an order made on 7 September 1977 declared the land forfeit to the State Authority, bringing into operation as a result the provisions of Part Eight in Division III of the Code. The Collector accordingly published in the State Government Gazettea notification of forfeiture in Form 8A under s. 130(1)on 15 September 1977 whereupon the forfeiture took effect with the consequences enacted in s. 131. The company applied to the State Authority on 17 November 1977 for the annulment of the forfeiture under s. 133(1) but this was refused by a letter dated 29 November 1977 as indeed the State Authority was entitled to do as the matter was one of its absolute discretion under subsection (2) of that provision.

The bank then applied to avoid the forfeiture under s. 134(1)by way of an appeal under s. 418 and took out a motion for this purpose on 7 December 1977 on the ground, as set out in a supporting affidavit, that it sought `the discretion and sympathy' of the Court to set aside the forfeiture which it contends is harsh and inequitable. We should perhaps add that the motion did not comply with the provisions of s. 418(2) and O. 59 r. 13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1957 which specifically require the grounds of appeal to be set out in the motion but no point was taken by the Collector on this, and furthermore it was only at the hearing of the motion that the bank raised the question of the purported invalidity of the notice in Form 6A under s. 97(1) on a contention that the sum demanded therein was