Land tenure conversion from perpetual ownership to leasehold without authority is invalid. Subsequent purchasers can challenge such actions, and the principle of caveat emptor does not apply in cases of administrative error.

Introduction

[1] This case concerns the wrongful conversion of land tenure from perpetual ownership to a 99-year leasehold by the Registrar of Land. The plaintiffs allege that this administrative error affected numerous plots in Mukim Sitiawan, Daerah Manjung, Perak. The plots are as depicted in the intitulement above, which were originally held under perpetual ownership. This court previously ruled in Lim Poh Chuen & Anor v. Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak [2024] MLRHU 751; [2024] 11 MLJ 258; [2024] 7 CLJ 269; [2024] 5 AMR 417, involving neighbouring properties, also in Mukim Sitiawan, Daerah Manjung, Perak and the same defendant, in favour of the plaintiffs. Building on this precedent and the cases relied upon in Lim Poh Chuen (supra), the plaintiffs contend that the tenure change was ultra vires and unconstitutional, and seek rectification to restore their perpetual ownership rights.

Facts

[2] The plaintiffs, totalling 110 individuals, are the registered owners of 84 land titles. The original plans for these lands were registered and issued in 1904, 1960, 1918, and 1929 under EMR ("Entry Mukim Register") and/or CT ("Certificate of Title").

[3] Upon the enactment of the National Land Code , EMR titles were reclassified as Geran Mukim, and CT titles as Geran, both indicating perpetual ownership. The master titles were submitted to the defendant for housing development purposes, leading to subdivision and the issuance of individual titles. During this process, the defendant erroneously changed the tenure of the plaintiffs' lands from 'in perpetuity' to '99-year leasehold'.

[4] The plaintiffs acquired their titles through transactions or inheritance, with the titles already designated as 99-year leasehold at the time of acquisition. They were not the original owners and were aware of the leasehold status upon obtaining the titles.

[5] The plaintiffs submit that prior to this suit, similar applications addressing the same issues resulted in favourable High court orders. The plaintiffs now seek correction of the defendant's error under s 380 of the National Land Code , which allows the Registrar to amend errors in land titles.

The Relief Sought By The Plaintiffs

a) a declaration that the 84 properties listed in the application, currently registered as 99-year leasehold, are invalid and void.

b) an order directing the Perak State Land Registrar to cancel the existing 99-year leasehold titles for these properties and issue new titles granting perpetual ownership.

c) permission for the plaintiffs to file additional applications, if necessary, to effectuate the court's orders.

d) an order for costs.

Issues

a) Whether the defendant had the authority to alter the land tenure from perpetual ownership to 99-year leasehold;

b) Whether the plaintiffs, as subsequent purchasers, have the standing to challenge the alteration of land tenure;

c) Whether the principle of caveat emptor applies to the plaintiffs' acquisition of the properties; and

d) Whether the plaintiffs should have appealed under s 418 of the National Land Code .

Preliminary Objections By The Defendant

[6] First preliminary objection: The defendant argues that they should not be named as a defendant in this case because the decision to grant the land to the original owners under a 99-year leasehold was made by the State Authority (Pihak Berkuasa Negeri - (PBN)). Therefore, any legal action against the PBN should be directed at the State Director, named in their official capacity, as the defendant merely executed the PBN's decision.

[7] The defendant's preliminary objection is unfounded as the registrar's role is central to the err