Failure to issue mandatory statutory forms in land acquisition procedures amounts to illegality, justifying judicial review.

[1] The salient facts of this case are as follows. The United Allied Empire Sdn Bhd ("the appellant") owned a 26-acre development project land ("the said land") and had voluntarily reserved a part of that said land measuring slightly less than an acre for the expansion of an existing mosque "Masjid Ar-Ridwan" on the site.

[2] The said land had since become the subject of a land acquisition exercise by the Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor (1st respondent), Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Selangor (2nd respondent), Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (3rd respondent), Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (4th respondent), Lembaga Zakat Selangor (5th respondent) and Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (6th respondent) (who will collectively be referred to as "the respondents") under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (" LAA 1960"). The acquisition exercise had affected the entire area of the said land. The declared public purpose of the said acquisition is to build a 26-acre mosque as was declared in the Government Gazette, it was acquired for "Tujuan Tapak Masjid Ar-Ridwan".

[3] The appellant was aggrieved by the said acquisition exercise and it had therefore, on 22 April 2013, filed an application for leave for Judicial Review ("JR") of the decision to acquire the said land by the respondents, with a view to have it quashed by way of an order of certiorari.

[4] On 12 February 2014, the Judicial Commissioner ("JC") granted the appellant leave to commence JR and a stay of all further proceedings in the acquisition of the Subject Land pending the disposal of the substantive JR application.

[5] The learned JC of the High Court sitting at Shah Alam, having heard the application, had dismissed the same with costs. In essence, the impugned decision has been related to the alleged wrongful acquisition of the appellant's land. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned JC had dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant had not made out a case for JR.

[6] Being further aggrieved by the dismissal of its application for JR, the appellant had filed the present appeal now before us.

The Appeal

[7] We heard this appeal over two days in 27 September 2016 and 24 November 2016. Having considered the able submissions of all learned counsel, we are of the view that this appeal ought to be allowed with costs. We proffer our reasons in allowing this appeal, as follows.

[8] But first, we set out the issues raised by the appellant:

1. Unsubstantiated findings, against contemporaneous evidence.

2. Forms A, D, and K issue, mandatory compliance required, and not conclusive vesting respectively.

3. Procedural impropriety.

4. Change in purpose of acquisition.

5. Legitimate expectation.

6. Mala fide.

[9] We will deal with the issues listed as above in turns, but not necessarily in sequence. At times, we found them to be inter-related. It was clear to us that the challenge mounted by the appellant was, in the main, premised on the grounds of procedural impropriety and/or illegality, as having played a prominent role in shaping the impugned decision of the respondents. Central to this issue has been the appellant's contentions pertaining to lack of due compliance with the requirements of Form A and Form K under the LAA 1960 by the resp