Claims related to land acquisition must adhere to statutory procedures established by law, particularly when dealing with compensation and trespass.

[1] In this action, the respondent claims against the appellant and two other defendants principally for damages as well as mesne profit for trespass allegedly committed by the appellant and the said two defendants and a declaration that they had trespassed into the respondent's land. The appellant, on 2 December 2016, filed an application in encl 45 seeking mainly an order to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim dated 17 February 2016 pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of 2012. The application was dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 16 February 2017. This is an appeal by the appellant against the said decision in which the appellant's application was dismissed.

[2] Before we embark upon a detailed consideration of the appeal, there is a preliminary matter which we ought to mention at the outset. Besides the appellant, who was the 3rd defendant in the present action in the High Court, the 2nd defendant had also filed a similar application in encl 47 which was heard and dismissed on the same day by the learned judge. The 2nd defendant filed a separate appeal against the High Court's decision. It is also worthy of mention that no such similar application was filed by the 1st defendant to strike out the respondent's claim.

[3] The facts that can be discerned from the respondent's pleadings reveal that the appellant was awarded a concession to construct a highway known as Lebuhraya Duta-Ulu Kelang or DUKE Highway (the highway for short). The respondent was the then landowner of a piece of property described as Lot 259, Hot Spring New Village, Mukim Setapak (the subject land) that was acquired for the construction of the highway in 2005. The subject land has an area of 558 square meters. The 1st defendant commenced land acquisition proceedings when on 20 January 2005 it published a Federal Gazette No 365 (Exh CSK-2) pursuant to s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (the Act). In Form E dated 30 March 2005 which was issued by the 1st defendant under s 10 of the Act after the publication of the said Gazette, it was stated that the subject land was deemed 'Hakmilik Tidak Dapat Dikesan'. A land acquisition enquiry (the first enquiry) was conducted in 2005. But no award was made to the respondent.

[4] Under s 8(4) of the Act, a declaration under subsection (1) shall lapse and cease to be of any effect on the expiry of two years after the date of its publication in the Gazette if the Land Administrator has not made an award under s 14(1) within the said period of two years and all proceedings already taken or being taken in respect of the subject property in consequence of such declaration shall terminate and be of no effect. The highway, part of which undisputedly runs across the subject land, was thereafter constructed and completed in 2009. The respondent pleaded that it did not make sense that the 1st defendant could not trace the respondent when in actual fact it had issued bills for quit rent to him and all receipts for payment thereof were issued in his name. Nevertheless, the respondent was not paid any compensation and when he wrote to the 1st defendant to enquire about the status of the acquisition of the subject land, he did not receive any feedback from the 1st defendant.

[5] Thus on 21 June 2013, the respondent issued a letter to the 1st defendant seeking compensation based on current market value or value agreed by a licensed valuer (exh CSK-7). However, the 1st defendant commenced a second land acquisition proceeding vide a Federal Gazette No 4244 dated 1 December 2014 (exh CSK-3) and conducted a second enquiry (the second enquiry). The respondent this time around attended the second enquiry which was held on 25 May 2015 and submi