1999 MarsdenLR 644
HIGH COURT (LIMBANG)
HASAN LAH, JC
TAPAH BIN BANGKOL
versus
SUPT. OF LANDS & SURVEYS
ORIGINATING MOTION NO. 25-04-98(LG)
Decided On : 07-15-99
Daud Ismail & Co. Advocates,
LIMBANG.
Counsel for Defendant: Mr. Thomas Akin Jelimin
State Attorney General,
KUCHING.
In this Originating Motion the Applicant had applied for an Order of Mandamus be made against the Respondent to move the Respondent to issue a Settlement Notification pursuant to Section 84 of Land Code (Sarawak Cap.8 1), which hereinafter is referred to as "the Code" to determine the rights of the Applicant over a parcel of land situated at Kampong Ranggau, Limbang, Sarawak containing an area of 10 acres more or less together with a single-storey wooden house built thereon and costs of this application. This application was supported by the Applicant's affidavit which was affirmed on 29th day of July 1998.
The application was opposed by the Respondent and the Respondent had filed an affidavit in opposition affirmed by Valentine Liaw Aik Sin on 25th day of November 1998.
The facts of the case can be summarized as follows At the relevant time the Applicant was staying in his own house built on a parcel of land situated in Limbang containing an area of 10 acres more or less (hereafter referred to as "the said land"). On the 20th day of May, 1997 the Respondent sent a letter to the Applicant demanding that the Applicant demolish the house and move out from the said land. Subsequently the Respondent issued two more similar letters.
On the 27th day of June 1997 the Applicant, through his solicitors, wrote to the Respondent notifying the Respondent that the Applicant has native customary rights over the said land and requested for his claim to be heard by the Respondent. On 12th day of May, 1998 the Applicant again wrote a similar letter to the Respondent. On the 28th day of May, 1998 the Respondent informed the applicant that investigations had been carried out and that they were satisfied that the Applicant's native customary rights did not exist on the said land.
On the 4th day of June, 1998 the Applicant write to the Respondent claiming that the investigations upon the said land was not properly conducted as required under the Code and the Applicant was never called to present his claim. Another letter was sent to the Respondent on the 24th day of June, 1998 requesting the Respondent to answer several questions pertaining to the status of the said land.
Case For the Applicant
The Applicant contended that the said land situated in Kampong Ranggau, Limbang and that he had a native customary rights over the said land. According to the Applicant Kampong Ranggau existed since 1912. Before the year 1963 there were about 70 houses in the said Kampong Ranggau, with a total population of about 1,200 people. As a result of a big confrontation between the people of Ranggau and the British 1962 the people of Kampong Ranggau including himself were forced out of their land in 1963 and they had to settle down in other nearby villages or in Brunei. The houses and buildings left behind were either destroyed or are now worn down by the force of time.
The Applicant also stated that he was born on the 4th day of December, 1939 on the said land. Before 1962 his parents made their living on the products of the said land and on fishing by the many streams in Ranggau and he was very active in the gathering of "bakau" trees for his family's income.
The Applicant further stated that in 1963 he and his families settled down at his wife's village of Kampong Seberang Kedai, Limbang. He wrote to the Chief Minister of Sarawak and the Forest Department, Miri requesting for a permit to cut "'bakau" trees in Kampong Ranggau. On the 10th day of May 1974 he received a fetter from the Ministry of Forest, Sarawak permitting him. to extract "bakau" trees in Kampong Ranggau. In 1995 he moved back to Kampong Ranggau and built his own house on the said land which he claimed formerly belonged to his parents.
The Applicant contended that the act of the Respondent in trying to demolish his house and evicting his family out of the said land without giving him a chance to defence himself as required by the Code is contrary to statutory provisions and natural justice