(delivering the Judgment of the Board): The appellant is a Malaysian of Chinese origin. In October 1979 the appellant entered into an agreement to buy the land and shophouse in which her father had run a goldsmith's business as tenant for some 45 years. The land is known as Lot 715, Jalan To'Hakim in the town of Kota Bharu, State of Kelantan; it is situate outside a Malay Reservation area and it may be transferred between natives of Kelantan without the prior approval of the Ruler in Council. Both the appellant and her vendor are natives of Kelantan.

On October 8, 1979 the appellant and the vendor executed a memorandum of transfer of the land. On March 3, 1980 the appellant's solicitor presented the memorandum of transfer and the issue document of title in respect of the land to the Registry of Titles for registration. On March 16, 1980 the appellant attended an Inquiry before the Deputy Registrar, the purpose of which was to satisfy the Deputy Registrar that both the vendor and the purchaser were natives of Kelantan. It is apparent from the record of that inquiry that it was not concluded that day as the appellant had not brought her birth certificate with her which she undertook to bring the following week. The transfer was registered on July 26, 1980.

Before the registration was completed the first steps were taken by the respondent that led to the compulsory acquisition of the premises by the respondent on behalf of the Kelantan Foundation. On July 17, 1980 a draft Form C was prepared containing particulars of the property and on July 24, 1980 a plan was prepared.

On October 23, 1980 the respondent published in the Gazette a declaration of intended acquisition in Form D ("G.N. 707") under section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 34 of 1960 specifying that the land was needed for "office and commercial space for the Kelantan Foundation".

The Kelantan Foundation is an educational foundation established by the Kelantan Foundation Enactment No. 1 of 1974. It is not in issue in this appeal that the respondent may use the statutory powers of compulsory acquisition to acquire land on behalf of the Foundation.

The appellant, however, is convinced that she has been the victim of an abuse of power and that her land has been compulsorily acquired in order to prevent her becoming the owner of land because she is of Chinese or non-Malay origin. Accordingly, she moved the High Court in Malaysia for an order that the compulsory acquisition of her land be declared null and void. The appellant attacked the compulsory acquisition on three grounds:

(1) That the acquisition was not for a public purpose as required under section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

(2) That the acquisition was made in bad faith.

(3) That the acquisition proceedings were illegal as the Notice of Enquiry issued by the Collector of Land Revenue in Form E was not served on the appellant.

The appellant failed on each of these grounds and her application was dismissed. On appeal to the Federal Court, the appellant did not pursue the third of her grounds, and failed on the other two grounds.

In presenting her appeal to this Board, the appellant has confined herself to the second of her original grounds, namely, that the compulsory acquisition of her land was made in bad faith in that her land was selected for compulsory acquisition because she is not of Malay origin, and that the Government used their compulsory purchase powers as a device to prevent her, as a Chinese Malaysian, from becoming the owner of land. If the appellant could prove that this was the disgraceful purpose for which the compulsory purchase power was used, it would be a clear case of abuse of power entitling her to have the compulsory purchase order quashed. There is no dispute about this principle of law and it was recognised by both the judge and the Federal Court. But as the trial judge rightly observed, bad faith of this order is an exceedingly serious allegation to make and she,