Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
NGO ONG CHUNG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: 24-460-04-2012]
Justice in this case is preserved through the court’s adherence to fundamental legal principles that ensure fairness, legality, and proper authority. The court ensures that actions taken by public authorities are within their legal powers, and any acts found to be ultra vires are declared void from the outset, preventing unlawful deprivation of property. The court emphasizes that administrative acts must be based on law and proper procedure, safeguarding individuals’ property rights against unlawful government actions [judgement_subject] (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court upholds the principle that statutes and constitutional provisions protect property rights, ensuring that any deprivation of property must be in accordance with law. It recognizes that acts contrary to legal authority or beyond statutory powers are invalid, thus preventing arbitrary or unjust administrative decisions (!) (!) .
The court also maintains fairness by rejecting defenses such as estoppel when they are used to legitimize acts that are inherently unlawful or ultra vires. It clarifies that equitable doctrines cannot override legal limits and that public authorities cannot invoke estoppel to justify exceeding their powers (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Additionally, the court considers limitation statutes but concludes that they do not apply where the act was ultra vires and void from the beginning. This ensures that legal remedies are not barred when the underlying act was unlawful, thus providing a remedy for injustice (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, justice is preserved through rigorous application of the law, ensuring that only lawful acts are recognized and that unlawful acts are nullified, thereby protecting individual rights and maintaining the rule of law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land tenure alteration and legal grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant's arguments against plaintiffs. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. ultra vires principles from related cases. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. limitation period and its applicability. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. estoppel doctrine against ultra vires acts. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
[1] The plaintiffs are seeking, vide the originating summons in encl 1, for a declaration that the changing of the tenure of their lands from freehold to leasehold by the defendant upon the issuance of the subdivided titles pursuant to an application for the conversion and subdivision of the freehold lands held under Certificate of Title No 21510 No Lot 844 Village of Kampong Koh, District of Dindings, State of Perak ("the lands"), vide Reference No: PTG PK 402-2-31, is null and void and contrary to the provisions of the National Land Code (" NLC ") and the Federal Constitution .
[2] The plaintiffs are also seeking consequential and ancillary orders for the subdivided leasehold titles to be replaced with freehold subdivided titles registered in the name of the respective plaintiffs and also for the name of the 2nd plaintiff in the subdivided titles and the register documents of title be rectified from Ng Hong Hock to Ngo Hong Hock.
[3] The facts giving rise to the summons can be shortly stated. The plaintiffs are the registered co-proprietors of the lands the particulars of which are set out in the supporting affidavit. Sometime in 1978, the plaintiffs applied to the defendant for conversion and sub-division of the lands for development into a housing scheme. It was then freehold land.
[4] When the defendant approved the application for conversion and subdivision of the lands into a housing scheme, the land authority also imposed a condition that the tenure of the lands will be reduced to leasehold for a term of 99 years. Accordingly, leasehold titles were issued on 4 July 1986. These titles also had an error in that the name of the 2nd plaintiff was spelt Ng Hong Hock instead of Ngo Hong Hock. The plaintiffs are now claiming that it is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the NLC and art 13 of the Federal Constitution to issue leasehold titles instead of freehold upon subdivision and conversion of the Master Title.
[5] The defendant is resisting this application on the ground that the plaintiff's application was time-barred by virtue of s 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 ("PAPA 1948"). The defendant also argued that the plaintiffs were estopped from filing this action as they had consented to the defendant's action in the alteration and reduction of the tenure of the land.
[6] Arising out of this factual background, the issues for consideration and decision of the court can be summarised as follows:
(1) Whether the act of the defendant in reducing the tenure of the lands was ultra vires and therefore null and void? ("Ultra Vires Issue");
(2) Whether the defence of limitation under s 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 applies? ("Limitation Issue"); and
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from seeking the prayers applied for? ("Estoppel Issue")
Ultra Vires Issue
[7] Relying on the cases of Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v. Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd , 1978 MarsdenLR 384 and Ipoh Garden Bhd v. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Perak, Ipoh ; 1978 MarsdenLR 295 , the plaintiffs contend that the act of the defendant in issuing leasehold titles instead of freehold was ultra vires the NLC and contravened the Federal Constitution and was therefore void.
[8] The facts in the Sri Lempah Enterprise case were similar to the instant action. In that case, the applicant company, the owner of a piece of land in perpetuity, applied for subdivision and conversion of the land to enable the company to put up a hotel. The Land Executive Committee, the approving authority at that time, approved the application with one of the conditions bein
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
