Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

The Background

The new township of Bandar Baru Nilai stands on lands acquired by the State Government of Negeri Sembilan in the exercise of their powers under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("the Act"). The present litigation arises out of that acquisition.

The appellants were registered co-proprietors of a piece of land in the Mukim of Labu. It was one of the several pieces of land acquired for the new township. The complaint is that the acquisition is in violation of law.

The appellants' case in support of that complaint is simple enough. It is based on facts that are common ground between the parties. The appellants say that the Forms A and B prescribed by the Act were never issued and that Forms D, E and F though issued were not served. The certificate of urgency to take possession in Form I was issued on 18 September 1993. Two days later, on 20 September 1993, the notification of acquisition in Form K was issued. It was only after Forms I and K were served on the appellants that they became aware of the acquisition. However, by the time Forms I and K were issued and served, the Land Administrator's inquiry into the issue of compensation had already commenced. The award of compensation for the acquisition was made on 14 July 1994. The appellants were awarded RM2 per square foot as compensation. However, about two years later, the appellants land was sold to a private limited company at a price of RM53 per square foot, that is to say, almost thirty times the value assessed and awarded by the Land Administrator.

The appellants being dissatisfied with the value assessed and awarded initiated land reference proceedings. They also took out an originating summons claiming the following relief: (i) an order setting aside the acquisition; (ii) an order retransferring their land to them; (iii) damages; and (iv) further or other appropriate relief.

The land reference came for hearing before the High Court on 12 February 1996. Counsel for the appellants moved the court for an adjournment pending the disposal of the summons which by then had been fixed for hearing on 4 March 1996. The learned judge did not deal with the appellants' application for adjournment. Instead, in the face of strong objection, he directed that the summons be brought forward before him on the following day, that is, 13 February 1996 for hearing and disposal. The summons was heard on 13 February and dismissed. As for the land reference, this was adjourned on several occasions and was dismissed on 12 February 2001. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned judge dismissing the appellants' summons.

The Issues

On these facts, two main issues arise for decision. These are, first, whether the acquisition of the appellants' lands was in accordance with law, that is to say, in this particular instance, whether it was in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Second, if the acquisition was not in accordance with law, then the relief, if any, that ought to be granted to the appellants.

The First Issue: The Legality Of The Acquisition

The main plank of the submission of learned counsel for the appellants on the first issue rests on two alleged violations of the Act. The first violation, it was submitted, relates to the non-issuance of Forms A and B prescribed by the Act. The second violation relates to the non-service of Forms D, E and F. Since the acquiring authority's response to these two parts of the case differs, I shall deal with them separately.

Now, it is common ground that Forms A and B were never issued. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this is fatal to the acquisition process. In order to appreciate this argument regard must be had to s. 4 which is the relevant provisions of the Act. It reads as follows:

(1) Whenever the State Authority is satisfied that any land in any locality in the State is likely to be needed for any of the purposes referred to in section 3 a notification in Form A shall b