The High Court can strike out a land reference if the applicant is absent, but only those with a legal interest in the land may participate in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT

Wong Kian Kheong J:

A. Introduction

[1] This land reference to the High Court (This Reference) raises the following three novel questions:

(1) does the High Court have power to strike out a land reference in a case management when an applicant who has filed the land reference, is not present? This issue concerns an interpretation of s 45(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ( LAA ) read with O 34 rr 1(1) and 6(1) of the Rules of 2012 (RC);

(2) if the High Court strikes out a land reference in a case management (Striking Out Order), whether the applicant has the following two options (Two Options) to:

(a) apply to the High Court to set aside the Striking Out Order and reinstate the land reference pursuant to O 34 r 6(2) (First Option); or

(b) appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Striking Out Order (Second Option) under s 49(1) LAA read with s 67(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA); and

(3) if the Two Options are available, whether the First Option is preferable than the Second Option in the interest of justice as well as to save judicial resources, time, effort and costs of all parties.

B. Background

[2] Shah Alam City Centre Sdn Bhd (Land Owner) is the registered proprietor of a piece of land in Lot No PT 2562, HSD 298847, Jalan Monfort, Section 13, Bandar Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan (Land).

[3] The Selangor State Authority (SA) has acquired 65,216 square metres of the Land (Scheduled Land) for the construction of the "Light Rail Transit 3" project from Bandar Utama to Johan Setia, Klang (Acquisition). The Acquisition was made on behalf of the applicant company (applicant) in This Reference.

[4] The Land Administrator (respondent) had conducted an enquiry under s 12 LAA to assess the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Land Owner for the Acquisition (Enquiry).

[5] After the respondent had conducted the Enquiry, pursuant to s 14 LAA , the respondent awarded a sum of RM31,786,550.40 (Compensation Sum) as compensation to the Land Owner for the Acquisition (Award).

[6] With regard to the Award, the respondent had received the following two objections under s 38 LAA (Two Objections):

(1) an objection by the Land Owner (Land Owner's Objection); and

(2) an objection by the Applicant (Applicant's Objection).

[7] The respondent had referred the Two Objections to this Court. Consequently, the Land Owner's Objection is registered in Court as Land Ref No: BA-15-10-03-2021 (Land Owner's Reference) while This Reference concerns the Applicant's Objection.

[8] The respondent's reference of the Land Owner's Objection to the High Court in Form O (prescribed in the Second Schedule to the LAA ) has stated that the applicant's address is B-20-1, Level 20, Menara UOA Bangsar, No 5, Jalan Bangsar Utama 1, 59000 Kuala Lumpur (Applicant's Address).

[9] The following four case managements (CM) for This Reference had been held on:

(1) 9 December 2020;

(2) 8 June 2021;

(3) 27 July 2021; and

(4) 24 August 2021

(Four CMs).

[10] Notices for the Four CMs had been sent to the applicant's Address. Learned counsel for the respondent were present for the Four CMs. However, the applicant's learned counsel was not present in all Four CMs.

[11] On 23 September 2021, the fifth CM of This Reference [CM (23 September 2021)] was held together with the Land Owner's Reference. This was because This Reference and Land Owner's Reference concerned the same Scheduled Land and should be heard together.

[12] At the CM (23 September 2021):

(1) the respondent's learned counsel applied to strike out This Reference due to the absence of the applicant's learned counsel. This Court then struck out This Reference and the deposit of This Reference was ordered to be paid to the respondent as costs [High Court's Striking Out Order (This Reference)]; and

(2) with regard to the Land Owner's Reference:

(a) the Land Owner's learned counsel, Mr Lum Kok Kiong, informed the Court that the Land Owner's Reference was filed because the applicant had filed This Reference to reduce t