Judicial review is not the appropriate remedy for challenges under the National Land Code, which mandates appeals for such decisions, and the State Authority acted within its discretion in rejecting the applications.

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] There are two judicial review applications between the same parties. Namely, (a) Application for Judicial Review No PA-25-69-09/2023 filed on 18 September 2023 ("1st JR"); and (b) Application for Judicial Review No PA-25-89-11/2023 filed on 20 November 2023 ("2nd JR").

[2] The 1st Respondent is the Land Administrator of Seberang Perai Selatan, Penang. The 2nd Respondent is the Penang State Director of Lands and Mines. The 3rd Respondent is the Penang State Government.

[3] There are two impugned decisions made by the State Authority on the same day, ie on 23 August 2023.

(a) The 1st JR challenges the decision of the State Authority which rejected the applicant's application for approval of surrender and re-alienation of Lot 13 Lot 1383, Lot 25703 (part of old Lot 21482), Lot 25704 (part of old Lot 1393), Lot 25705 (part of old Lot 14) and Lot 25706 (part of old Lot 21482), Mukim 15, Jalan Tasek Mutiara 10, Daerah Seberang Perai Selatan, Pulau Pinang ("said lands").

(b) The 2nd JR challenges the decision of the State Authority which rejected the applicant's application for approval of the subdivision and variation of the express condition of Lot 25706 (Grant Mukim No 2486), Mukim 15, Daerah Seberang Perai Selatan, Pulau Pinang.

[4] The Applicant seeks a certiorari to quash the impugned decisions. And a Mandamus directing the Respondents to approve:- (a) the applicant's application for approval of surrender and re-alienation (in the 1st JR); and (b) the applicant's application for subdivision and variation of the express condition (in the 2nd JR).

[5] Essentially, the Applicant's case in both judicial review applications is that the impugned decisions, with the effect of stifling the applicant's development projects, were made to punish the Applicant for not succumbing to the Penang State Government's demand. Namely to immediately construct a connecting road, or surrender the land thereof which does not form part of the lands to be developed. The Applicant claims that the impugned decisions are illegal, irrational, unreasonable, ultra vires and an abuse of power.

[6] On 29 April 2024, I dismissed both judicial review applications. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[7] The Applicant is a developer responsible for developing the township known as Bandar Tasek Mutiara. Adjacent to Bandar Tasek Mutiara is an ongoing development known as Hijauan Hills, which is carried out by Asas Dunia Bhd Bandar Tasek Mutiara is not directly accessible from Hijauan Hills, and vice versa. There is a proposed link road connecting Bandar Tasek Mutiara to Hijauan Hills, that has become the subject of dispute in the judicial review applications herein.

[8] On 5 January 2016, Majlis Bandaraya Seberang Perai ('MBSP') granted the Applicant planning permission for a proposed housing scheme involving 204 housing units, 2 kindergartens, a community hall and a TNB substation on part of Lot 21482, Lot 13, Lot 14, Lot 1383 and Lot 1393, Jalan Tasek Mutiara 10, Simpang Ampat, Mukim 15, Seberang Perai Selatan. Prior to that, on 18 December 2015, the MBSP gave the Applicant planning permission for a proposed housing scheme involving 333 residential units on a part of Lot 21482, Jalan Tasek Mutiara 7, Simpang Ampat, Mukim 15, Seberang Perai Selatan.

[9] According to the Respondents, there will be a proposed connecting road that will link Hijauan Hills to Jalan Tasek Mutiara 10, if the Applicant had started construction in accordance with the planning permission immediately after receiving the same. The proposed connecting road is now the crux of the issue in the judicial review applications herein. In the plan attached with the 18 December 2015 planning permission, the proposed connecting road was stated as follows:

"Jalan ini akan di bina dan di serah apabila baki lot 21482 di majukan pada masa hadapan"

[10] The Respondents aver that the Applicant was also granted planning permission approval by MBSP on 16 February 201