Back
2025 MarsdenLR 851
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SISTEM LINGKARAN LEBUHRAYA KAJANG SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
ORCHARD CIRCLE SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-3-02-2024(B)]
A valid surrender of land requires strict adherence to statutory provisions, including obtaining written consent from chargeholders. Non-compliance can invalidate the surrender and affect compensation rights.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Sections 49(1), 200, 201 - National Land Code - Validity of land surrender and compensation assessment - Court of Appeal set aside High Court’s decision maintaining nominal compensation of RM10.00 for surrendered land, remitting case for reassessment - Land Administrator's award scrutinized under statutory provisions for surrender - Compliance with s 196 and subsequent endorsement procedures discussed - Court identified mixed questions of fact and law regarding surrender validity. (Paras 1-132)
(B) Appeal - Nature of questions in land acquisition - Distinction between questions of law and fact - Proviso of s 49(1) restricts appeals on compensation awards; appellate court emphasizes statutory compliance for land surrender. (Paras 1-132)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal details and main issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interpretation of s 49(1) of laa 1960. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. definition of a question of law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal framework for land surrender under nlc. (Para 9 , 10 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. existing judicial review applications. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. findings and appeals on questions of law. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 74 , 76) |
| 7. final judgment and decision on appeal. (Para 42) |
[1] This is an appeal by SILK against the decision of the Court of Appeal on 25 August 2023 that set aside the decision of the High Court which among others, maintained the compensation awarded by the Land Administrator for the alleged surrendered land (impugned land) in the nominal sum of RM10.00. The Court of Appeal further ordered that the case be remitted to the Shah Alam High Court before the same judge for a hearing of the assessment of the impugned land.
The Main Issues
[2] The main issues in the present appeal are as follows:
(i) the application of the proviso of s 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ( LAA 1960).
(ii) what amounts to a question of law?
(iii) was there a question of law in the present case?
(iv) whether there was a valid surrender of the impugned land by Orchard Circle to the State Authority.
The Application Of The Proviso Of Section 49 (1) Of The LAA 1960.
[3] Section 49 (1) of the LAA 1960 provides:
"49. (1) Any person interested, including the Land Administrator and any person or corporation on whose behalf the proceedings were instituted pursuant to s 3 may appeal from a decision of the Court to the Court of Appeal and to the Federal Court:
Provided that where the decision comprises an award of compensation there shall be no appeal therefrom"
[4] The reading of the above proviso is clear that there shall be no appeal on a decision that comprises the award of compensation. However, if there is a question of law concerning compensation, the door is still open for further appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
[5] The interpretation of the proviso has been made by this Court in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Another Case ; where this was said:
"[155] To sum up, the proviso to sub-section 49(1) of the Act does not represent a complete bar on all appeals to the Court of Appeal from the High Court on all questions of compensation. Instead, the bar to appeal in sub-section 49(1) of the Act is limited to issues of fact on ground of quantum of compensation. Therefore, an aggrieved party has the right to appeal against the decision of the High Court on questions of law."
[6] On this interpretation of the proviso to s 49(1), in another case of Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor v. Nusantara Daya Sdn Bhd ; , this Court acknowledged the proposition of law in Semenyih Jaya but added that the question of law must be given a narrow interpretation. The Court explained:
"[37] Although the Federal Court in Semenyih Jaya decided that there was still a right of appeal from a decision of the High Court on compensation if the appeal was on questions of law, that the bar was 'limited to issues of fact on ground of quantum of compensation', there was, however, no definition or indication as to what may amount to a question of law within the context and purpose of s 49(1), especially its proviso. Certainly, at no time did the Federal Court in Semenyih Jaya define or even attempt to define in any manner whatsoever, the meaning to be ascribed to the phrase 'question of law'. And, we must immediately dispel any thoughts harboured to the effect that the six questions of law or even the two constitutional questions posed in Semenyih Jaya necessarily fall within the ambit and meaning of question of law as envisaged in para [155] of its decision."
.....
[61] Yet another reason why a narrow construction must be given to the phrase 'question of law' is that in Semenyih Jaya, the specific question of law posed in respect of s 49(1) itself was dir
