The validity of a land sale order is contingent upon strict adherence to statutory compliance requirements as prescribed by the National Land Code.

(Datuk Mohd. Saari Bin Yusoff H)

In Notice of Motion (Encl. 1), the applicant (chargor) prays that the order for sale granted by Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan on 6 May 1999 be set aside.

Brief facts

2. The subject matter of dispute is land held under GM 3116 LOT NO. 42190 Mukim Batu Wilayah Persekutuan (hereinafter referred to as ?the said land?) which land w charged by the applicants in favour of the respondent (chargee) as collateral for loan and overdraft facilities granted by respondent to the applicants. Upon the applicants defaulted repayment of loan and overdraft, the respondent issued Notice of Demand dated 21 June 1998 (Ex. TPBB-4) followed by a statutory Notice in Form 16D dated 27 September 1998 (Ex. TPBB-5).

[2]

3. On 10 March, 1999 Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan held an enquiry under section 263 NLC 1965, where a certificate of indebtedness (Ex. TPBB-6) signed by Manager of the respondent was tendered. At the conclusion of the enquiry, Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan granted an order for sale by issuing an order in Form 16H.

Issue

4. Issues for determination are:

i) whether there was sufficient compliance with section 254(1) (a) of NLC 1965;

ii) whether there was sufficient compliance with section 263(2) (c) of NLC 1965.

First, I propose to deal with the second issue.

Second issue

5. In this proceeding, the applicant (chargor) is seeking for a fresh enquiry to be held by Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan on the ground that there was non-compliance with section 263 (2) (C) of NLC 1965 which is reproduced below:

?263. Order for sale, and matters to be dealt with thereby.

(1) At the conclusion of any enquiry under section 261, the Land Administrator shall order the sale of the land or lease to which the charge in question relates unless he is satisfied of the existence of cause to the contrary.

[3]

(2) Every such order shall be in Form 16H, and shall -

(a) (not applicable)

(b) (not applicable)

(c) specify the amount due to the chargee at the date of which the order is made; and

(d) (not applicable)

6. To revert to instant case, at the enquiry before PTWP, certificate of indebtedness (Ex. TPBB-6) was tendered, which read as follows:

?This is to certify that as at 6th May, 1999, the abovenamed accountee is still indebted to the Bank in the total sum of RM 214,682-13 as below:-

RM

Housing Loan 99,344-22

Overdraft 115,337-91

Total 214,682-13

Estimated Cost (6/5/99) 23,212-90

237,895-03

7. In the order of PTWP in Form 16H, the amount specified as the amount due to the chargee was RM 237,895.03. Of this amount, RM 23,212.90 was the estimated cost. It may well be that the right of the respondent to claim under this head exists under clause 29 of the annexure to the charge, nevertheless such claim is subject to strict proof. As it is, the claim under this head is speculative.

[4]

In this circumstances, I am not satisfied that the respondent had complied with the requirement of section 263 (2) (c) of NLC 1965. That being so, the enquiry held by PTWP on 6 May 1999 was a nullity (see Maimunah bte Megat Montak v Mayban Finance Bhd (1966) 2 MLJ 422).

On the first issue

8. The applicant's complain is that the respondent had failed to specify the breach in Form D in that clause 7 of the annexure to the charge was not specified in the said Form D. Relevant part of Form D states:

?Bahawasanya, kamu telah melakukan suatu pelanggaran terhadap peruntukan-peruntukan gadaian ini dengan:

Tidak mematuhi Notis Tuntuan kami bertarikh 21-6-1998 yang menuntut jumlah hutang setakat 12-5-1998, butir-butirnya seperti berikut... ... ... ... ... "

As to the format, I am satisfied that there