A landowner who has accepted compensation without objection may still intervene in land reference proceedings to safeguard their interests in compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and Article 13 of the Federal Constitution.

Mary Lim Thiam Suan FCJ:

[1] My learned brothers and sisters in this panel have read this judgment in draft and they have agreed to the draft in toto. This is the unanimous decision of this Court.

[2] The single poser in this appeal is whether a landowner who has, without any objection, accepted an award of compensation made by the Land Administrator is nevertheless entitled to intervene and participate in land reference proceedings initiated by another interested party, namely the 'paymaster' who had objected to that award of the Land Administrator. This issue is of utmost importance and relevance to the proper conduct of land reference proceedings.

[3] The landowner who is the appellant in this appeal invoked the procedural options of intervention and joinder under O 15 of the Rules of 2012 in order to partake in the land reference proceedings. The application was allowed by the High Court. On appeal, this order was set aside on the basis that such procedure amounted to an abuse of the Court's process, that the appellant was obliged to file Form N, as provided under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486].

Relevant Facts

[4] The appellant is the registered proprietor of land held under Lot No 7770, Mukim of Kelemak, District of Alor Gajah, Melaka [scheduled land]. The scheduled land was acquired for the 1st respondent [TNB] for the purpose of constructing its main substation. Pursuant to s 12 of Act 486, the Land Administrator conducted an enquiry. Form E dated 30 March 2018 was issued to the appellant informing of the date of enquiry.

[5] After due enquiry, the Land Administrator awarded the appellant RM467,154.22 [see Form H dated 13 June 2018] comprising:

[6] Upon receipt of this award on 2 July 2018, the appellant accepted the award without any objection. It, therefore did not file any Form N. TNB, on the other hand objected to the award, specifically on the 'incidental costs'. It lodged its objection vide Form N on 7 August 2018.

[7] The Land Administrator referred TNB's objection to the High Court vide Form O. In the land reference, TNB and the Land Administrator were respectively cited as applicant and respondent. The appellant was however, not cited as a party although Form O identified the appellant as "... a person interested in the land".

[8] The appellant decided to intervene in the Land Reference, invoking O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the Rules of 2012 and/or inherent jurisdiction of the Court - see encl 4. The appellant explained that it ought to be allowed to intervene because as landowner of the subject land acquired for TNB's purposes, and as recipient of the compensation paid for such acquisition, it would be prejudiced by any reduction of compensation [apa-apa pengurangan dalam kos sampingan akan menjejaskan Pencelah yang dicadangkan].

[9] In the affidavit filed in support, the appellant added that it ought to be made a party in order to protect its rights and interests [supaya dapat menjaga kepentingan dan hak Pencelah yang dicadangkan]; that it is important for the administration of fair justice and for the just disposal of the matter [mustahak bagi pentadbiran kehakiman yang adil dan penentuan tindakan ini secara adil].

[10] The application was opposed with TNB citing abuse of the process prescribed under Act 486; that the filing of Form N was a "compulsory statutory Form N" and the only mode available under Act 486 for any interested person to be a party in the land reference; that the appellant's non-filing of Form N was fatal and precluded the appellant from taking part in the land reference proceedings.

[11] TNB further took the position that any interest of the appellant is "sufficiently safeguarded by the respondent"; that it was for the Land Administrator to defend the award [adalah bagi responden untuk membela Awad berkenaan dan sehubungan ini, kesahan "Faedah Pinjaman" yang berjumlah sebanyak RM192,654.22].

Decision Of The High Court

[12] After examining ss 37(1) and 38(1) of Act 486, the learned Judge agree