An application to intervene in land acquisition proceedings must demonstrate necessity; failure to adhere to proper objection procedures negates standing in appellate review.

[1] All three appeals were heard together before us, as the issue in all the three appeals centered on the application by the appellant made by three identical summons in chambers to intervene and be made a co-respondent in the respective three Land Reference cases at the High Court, Shah Alam.

[2] The proposed intervener in the three Land Reference cases is Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd ("SILK"). It is the concessionaire appointed by the Government of Malaysia to undertake the construction of Lebuhraya Penyuaraian Trafik Jalan Lingkaran Kajang ("SILK Highway") pursuant to a Privatisation Agreement dated 8 October 1997 and Supplementary Privatisation Agreement dated 1 August 2001.

[3]Vide Selangor State Government Gazette No 1862 dated 24 October 2002 the "scheduled lands" were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('LAA 1960') for the SILK Highway. Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (LLM) is the corporation or body on whose behalf the acquisition proceedings under s 3 1960 was undertaken by the State Authority. There is no dispute that the lands which were acquired for the Highway are now owned and vested in the name of LLM.

[4] The LAA 1960 is a special Act relating to the acquisition of land, the procedure for the assessment of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition and all matters incidental thereto, including the manner, procedure, and circumstances upon which any dissatisfied party to an award of compensation may pursue legal redress in Court. In view of it being a special Act we are unanimous that the statutory provisions therein must be strictly adhered to and made applicable to all relevant parties. All procedural steps leading for a final determination of any award shall be in accordance with the provisions of 1960. This is clearly recognized in respect of all proceedings in Court, as can be seen from s 45(2) 1960 which reads:

(2) Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. (emphasis added)

[5] At the very outset we wish to express our unanimous view, based on the factual matrix relating to SILK's application in the summons in chambers, that O 15 r 6(2)(b)(i) Rules of the High 1980 (RHC 1980) cannot be invoked because it refers to a situation where "any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon". SILK most certainly does not fall within that category of person envisaged in O 15 r 6(2)(b)(i) RHC 1980. The following pertinent facts require emphasis:

1) SILK is not disputing the award made by the Land Administrator;

2) SILK did not file any objection in Form N with the Land Administrator under the provisions of the LAA 1960 with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded to the persons interested in the scheduled lands;

3) SILK has not prayed in the summons in chambers, for leave under the provisions of the LAA 1960, to file Form N with the Land Administrator out of time;

4) SILK did not evince any interest or attempt to participate at the enquiry under s 12 LAA 1960;

5) SILK's admitted intention in wanting to intervene is to defend the award of compensation by the Land Administrator and not to oppose the award of compensation made by the Land Administrator.

[6] In the above circumstances, what are the 'matters in dispute' that may be 'effectively and completely determined and adjudicated upon' which necessitates SILK to be a party in the proceedings at the High Court? The