A party cannot pursue inconsistent legal claims simultaneously; challenges to the validity of public authority decisions must follow judicial review procedures.

Preliminaries

[1] For convenience, we heard Civil Appeal No: J-01(IM)(NCVC)-512-12-2014 and Civil Appeal No: J-02-(IM)(NCVC)-2187-12-2014 together as they were related, the parties thereto were the same and they involved a common core of facts. We propose to give reasons for our decisions with respect to both appeals in this judgment. Before proceeding further, we may mention that in the court below, the appellant herein, namely Kelana Megah Development Sdn Bhd commenced an action against both respondents by way of a writ of summons and statement of claim. Both respondents subsequently filed two separate applications pursuant to O 18 r 19(a), (b) and (c) of the Rules of 2012 to strike out the appellant's writ of summons and statement of claim. The High court allowed both applications. The appeals before this court have been brought by the appellant in the light of the High court's decision in allowing the respondents' applications. We shall refer to the respondent in Appeal No: 512 as "the 1st respondent" while the respondent in Appeal No: 2187 as "the 2nd respondent" and collectively we shall refer to them as "the respondents".

The Facts

[2] The appellant was previously the registered proprietor of seven plots of agricultural estate land under freehold titles located in the Mukim of Pengerang, District of Kota Tinggi, Johore with the total area of 1149.6487 hectares (the seven plots of land). The seven plots of land, at all material times, were planted with oil palm trees. Apparently, the State Authority, being of the opinion that it would be beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the public generally, compulsorily acquired the seven plots of land for a project known as the 'Refinery and Petrochemical Integrated Development' (the RAPID Project) to be undertaken by the 2nd respondent. The seven plots of land account for approximately 45% of the 6239 acres of land required or acquired for the RAPID Project. The acquisition was made pursuant to an application by the 2nd respondent under s 3(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (the Act) and the requisite notifications were published in the Gazette.

[3] On 3 September 2012, the land enquiry in respect of the acquisition of the seven plots of land was conducted by the Land Administrator to determine its market value. It is irrefutable fact that the appellant participated in the said land enquiry. At the conclusion of the land enquiry, the appellant was awarded compensation of 93 sen per square foot amounting in total, to RM114,964,890.00 for the acquisition of the seven plots of land.

[4] Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Administrator for the seven plots of land, the appellant, pursuant to ss 37 and 38(1) of the Act, filed an objection against the Land Administrator's award through the requisite Form N for each of the seven plots of land and thereby caused Land Reference proceedings to commence in the High court at Johore Bahru in respect of the seven plots of land.

[5] There are seven land references made to the High court viz:

a. Land Reference Proceedings 15-62-03-2013 for Lot 74;

b. Land Reference Proceedings 15-63-03-2013 for Lot 375;

c. Land Reference Proceedings 15-64-03-2013 for Lot 520;

d. Land Reference Proceedings 15-65-03-2013 for Lot 672;

e. Land Reference Proceedings 15-66-03-2013 for Lot 836;

f. Land Reference Proceedings 15-67-03-2013 for Lot 837; and

g. Land Reference Proceedings 15-68-03-2013 for Lot 1104.

The proceedings under these land references are still pending in the High court. It is noteworthy that the 2nd respondent is the intervenor i