(delivering the Judgment of the Court read by Edgar Joseph Jr. J.) The issue involved in this appeal concerns the legality of the acquisition of a piece of land comprising Lot 532 in Mukim 12, South West District of Penang. The land is part of the estate of oneOng Joo Sun (deceased) and has a total area of 42 acres, 3 roods and 35 poles.

On April 25, 1974 by Gazette Notification No. 103 of 1974 the Penang State Authority made a declaration under section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 (the Act) to the effect that the whole area of this land together with six other pieces of lands specified in the Notification was needed for —

"Public, Industrial, Residential, Commercial and Agricultural Purposes to wit for land development and utilisation, resettlement of squatters, housing, institutional and recreational amenities in relation to integrated urban development and matters connected therewith."

Nothing was done in regard to this declaration until seven years later, when on June 15, 1981 an inquiry under section 10 of the Act was held and on July 7, 1981 an award of $1,117,418.50 calculated at the rate of 60 cents per square foot was made. The award was based on the valuation by the Government Valuer as to the market value of the land on the date of the G.N. 103/74 in compliance with paragraph 1(1) of the First Schedule to the Act.

However, before the aforesaid inquiry was held, Penang State Authority by another Gazette Notification, i.e. G.N. 884/79 dated December 20, 1979, made another declaration under section 8 of the Act in respect of this land to the effect that an area of 0.2151 acre, i.e. 9,369 square feet of it together with some other lands stated in the Gazette Notification was needed for public purpose, namely "Penang Island Traffic Dispersal — Package II". Inquiry under section 10 of the Act in respect of the acquisition under this Gazette Notification was held about four months later, i.e. on April 24, 1980 and a sum of $28,109.27 for this small piece was awarded, the sum being calculated at $3.00 per square foot as the market value of it on the date of G.N. 884/79. There was no challenge to this award and we assume that it was fully accepted by the respondent.

Whilst the acquisition under G.N. 884/79 was waiting to be inquired into under section 10 of the Act, the Collector Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang, in reply to a letter by the respondent's solicitors, wrote a letter dated January 9, 1980 to the solicitors stating that action was being taken to withdraw the acquisition declared in G.N. 103/74, and after the award of $28,109.27 in respect of the acquisition under G.N. 884/79 was made the Collector wrote to the solicitors another letter dated June 11, 1980 stating —

"Tanah yang bukan dibawah G.N. 103/74 tindakan sudah diambil untuk membatalkan warta itu dan akan diwartakan tidak lama lagi."

(In respect of the land not under G.N. 103/74 action had been taken to cancel the Gazette Notification and this would be published soon."

Needless to say that this letter makes no sense unless the Collector meant to say that action had been taken to cancel the acquisition declared in G.N. 103/74. The word "bukan" meaning "not", must have been wrongly or inadvertently inserted, and therefore no effect should be given thereto because there was no question of the whole land not having been declared for acquisition under G.N. 103/74. The whole area was subject to G.N. 103/74. If the word "bukan" was not inadvertently inserted in, the reference to G.N. 103/74 is also meaningless unless it reads G.N. 884/79, so that the letter means to say that "in respect of the land not under G.N. 884/79 action had been taken to cancel the notification".

It is thus clear from these two letters that the intention of Penang State Authority up to June 11, 1980 was to withdraw from the acquisition of the whole piece of land except that portion which was gazetted for traffic dispersal and that the State Authority would soon