Back
2014 MarsdenLR 896
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ISHMAEL LIM ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
PESURUHJAYA TANAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01-220-2010]
The court upheld that once formal possession of land is taken under the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition process is complete, rendering subsequent ownership claims invalid regardless of Memorial endorsement.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Sections 8, 10, 14, 16, 22, 23, and 35 - Claim for ownership of Land following acquisition process - Court affirmed completion of acquisition upon issuance of Borang K on 11 March 1974, deeming it valid despite non-endorsement of Memorial, declaring appellant's title ineffective due to prior vested authority. (Paras 30, 39, 48, 57)
(B) Authority's possession and land registration - Completion of acquisition process affirmed as independent from endorsement of Memorial, thus invalidating appellant’s claims of indefeasibility. (Paras 44, 49, 56)
(C) Constitutional rights of ownership - Court upheld legal acquisition and prior compensation paid to original owner does not affect current dispute validity. (Paras 56, 57)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claims ownership of land transferred to him in 1992 but was allegedly acquired by the State in 1974 for military purposes, leading to subsequent legal challenges upon being served a notice to vacate in 2005. (Paras 1-20)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the issuance of Borang K effectively shifted ownership to the State Authority, rendering subsequent transfers void under the Land Acquisition Act. (Paras 30, 39, 57)
Issues: Whether the acquisition process was completed and if so, the implications for the appellant’s ownership claims. (Paras 36-38)
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that possession taken by the State completed the acquisition process and title was not dependent on the Memorial endorsement, thereby invalidating the appellant's ownership claims. (Paras 39, 48, 57)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquisition of land for public purpose. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. claim of ownership and compensation by appellant. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. respondents' defense on lawful acquisition and title. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. trial judge's decision on acquisition status. (Para 30 , 31) |
Background Facts Of Case And Chronology Of Events
[1] 10 April 1973 - A Declaration Of Intended Acquisition in Borang D pursuant to s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (the Act) that the land held under EMR 4091 Lot 1873, Mukim Rawang, District of Gombak, Selangor(the Land) was needed for a public purpose, that is, for the construction of a Military College, was gazetted.
[2] At the material time the registered owner of the Land was one Lim Cheng Kim.
[3] 21 August 1973 - An Intended Acquisition: Notice Of Enquiry in Borang E under s 10 of the Act was issued to several land owners including Lim Cheng Kim.
[4] 20 September 1973 - A Written Award Of Compensation in Borang G under s 14 of the Act was issued and Lim Cheng Kim was awarded a sum of RM6,187.80 as compensation for the acquisition of the Land.
[5] 13 October 1973 - A Notice Of Award And Offer Of Compensation in Borang H under s 16 of the Act was issued to Lim Cheng Kim.
[6] 27 December 1973 - Upon the application of the Land Administrator under s 29(2) of the Act the court ordered that the compensation payable to Lim Cheng Kim together with the compensation for 13 other land owners, in the total sum of RM743,553.50 be deposited into court.
[7] 11 March 7194 - Borang K, the Notice That Possession Has Been Taken Of Land, under s 22 of the Act was issued.
[8] 24 October 1975 - The Land was transferred from Lim Cheng Kim to Lim Yew Kay, the appellant's father.
[9] 22 January 1986 - The Land was realienated and a new title issued in the name of the 1st respondent, with Borang D endorsed on the title.
[10] 10 December 1992 - The Land, notwithstanding the realienation to the 1st respondent, was transferred from Lim Yew Kay to the appellant.
[11] 17 November 1993 - The appellant charged the Land to United Malayan Banking Corporation (UMBC) as security for a loan.
[12] 12 June 2002 - A Memorial was duly endorsed on the title to the Land.
[13] 7 November 2002 - The appellant was informed by the 2nd respondent that the Land had been acquired on 11 March 1974.
[14] 9 March 2005 - The appellant was served with a Notice to vacate and demolish any structures on the Land on or before 22 March 2005.
The Appellant's Case
[15] The appellant claimed to be the lawful registered owner of the Land having been transferred from his father on 10 December 1992 and that he had been residing on the Land with his family since 1993.
[16] In 1995 the appellant, as the owner, had let part of the Land to a telecommunications company for the construction of a telecommunications tower.
[17] The appellant was (presumably) unaware of the 1973/74 acquisition until on or about 9 March 2005 when two officers from the 2nd respondent's office served him with a Notice to Vacate and Demolish.
[18] The appellant had been diligently paying the assessments and quit rents since 1993 and had in fact charged the Land to UMBC (now known as RHB Bank Bhd) as security for a loan on 17 November 1993.
[19] The appellant had made several land title searches on the Land from 1993 to 2005 and at all times the land searches confirmed that the appellant was the registered proprietor.
[20] The appellant claims to have an indefeasible interest in the Land pursuant to s 340 of the National Land Code 1965 as no Memorial in respect of the acquisition of the Scheduled Land had been endorsed on the title to the Land in breach of s 23 of the Act, and hence the acquisition process has not been completed in accordance with law.
[21] The appellant also claims lawful ownership as he has been in continued and undisturbed possession of the Land since 1993 and having dul
