Azmel Maamor J:

This is an application by the intended intervener, Muthu a/l Murugiah, to be included as a party to this action (encl. 56). The 1st and 2nd applicants as well as the respondent opposed this application.

The brief facts that led the intended intervener to make this application are as follows. The 1st applicant and his brother Sivapathy were not very satisfied with the amount of award received by them in respect of the compensation for the acquisition of their lands, namely, Lots PT3717, PT 3718 and PT 3719. The 1st applicant was only awarded RM85 per sq. ft. whereas the market value of property in the area was found to be RM200 per sq. ft. As such the two brothers appointed the intended intervener to do the necessary with a view to obtaining a bigger amount of compensation for the acquisition. The intended intervener informed the 1st applicant that he could make a case for further compensation on the following grounds:

(i) Revaluation upwards of the RM85.00 per square foot originally mistakenly agreed to;

(ii) Compensation for injurious affection;

(iii) Compensation of the surrendered land, which was overlooked as a result of the issuing of new titles in accordance with the approved development plan which excluded the surrendered land as compensation was based strictly on the new title. The amendments to s. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 with the incorporation of s. 9A established new principles on the amount of compensation being awarded. The damages the 1st Applicant is entitled to as a result of having to abort the Development Project, for which 31,703 feet was surrendered to the authorities has to be assessed in accordance with s. 1(2) and s. 2(d) of the 1st Schedule of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1977.

The intended intervener then prepared a letter on behalf of the 1st applicant to the Land Administrator to seek further compensation. For the work done by the intended intervener the 1st applicant agreed to give him 10% of the additional compensation to be received by the 1st applicant. The above facts were not challenged by any of the applicants as well as the respondent.

The only issue that needed to be determined in this case is whether the intended intervener comes within the meaning of "persons interested" in order to justify him to be made a party to this suit. This becomes quite necessary in the light of the provisions of s. 14(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, which states:

Every award prepared under subsection (1) shall be filed in the office of the Land Administrator and shall be final and conclusive evidence of the area of any scheduled land, of its value in the opinion of the Land Administrator, and of the apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Land Administrator, whether the persons interested have or have not appeared at the inquiry. (emphasis added).

In this Act, the term "persons interested" has been defined under s. 2 as follows:

'persons interested' includes every person claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act, but does not include tenant at will.

The 1st and 2nd applicants as well as the learned senior federal counsel representing the respondent in this case had opposed the application by the intended intervener on the ground that he was not a person within the meaning of "persons interested" as defined under the said Act.

I must admit that there has not been any Malaysian case which had dealt with this issue. However counsel for the intended intervener referred to an authority in the 1st applicant's bundle of authorities. Page 3 of the 1st applicant's bundle of authorities refers to the content of a book entitled "The Law of Land Acquisition and Compensation"written by VG Ramachandran, vol. 1. In dealing with the definition of "a person interested" the author, at p. 2 stressed that the definition of the term clearly is not exhaustive. At p. 3, the author quotes the observation of the Indian Supr