Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2484
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
LIEW YOKE CHUAN & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH KINTA PEJABAT DAERAH & TANAH KINTA IPOH & ORS – Respondent
[Judicial Review No: AA-25-13-10/2023]
The Court affirmed the lawful alienation of state land despite procedural irregularities, ruling applicants as squatters without rights, invalidating eviction notices due to lack of due process, and dismissing the time-barred challenge.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 - Sections 425 and 341 - Perak Land Rules 1966 - Legality of land alienation and its implications.
(B) The Court examined the alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements in the alienation process and the validity of eviction notices issued to occupants claiming legitimate expectation.
(C) Applicants, previously occupying state lands, contested the legality of their eviction after the lands were alienated to a statutory body in 2013. Respondents asserted the applicants were squatters with no lawful claim.
(D) Main issues addressed include the lawfulness of the alienation, time-bar of the challenge, validity of notices, applicants' right to occupy, and claims of legitimate expectation. (E) The Court found the alienation lawful despite procedural irregularities, and that the challenge was time-barred since awareness of the alienation occurred in 2013. Furthermore, eviction notices issued without due process were invalid. (F) The Court concluded, 'The application is dismissed in its entirety, with no relief granted and no order as to costs.' (G) Applicants vs. Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Perak (PKNP) and Land Administrator. (H) No dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints presented.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over land alienation validity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. applicants assert rights and challenge. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 30) |
| 3. procedural non-compliance and legality questioned. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. conflict of interest defense rebutted. (Para 22 , 23 , 26) |
| 5. claim's time-bar evaluated. (Para 29 , 31 , 33) |
| 6. legality of s 425 notices assessed. (Para 37 , 39 , 40 , 42) |
| 7. adverse possession principles discussed. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 49) |
| 8. legitimate expectation defense examined. (Para 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 9. final conclusions on all claims. (Para 81) |
Introduction
[1] This case concerns a dispute over the lawfulness of the alienation of certain lands to the 2nd Respondent, Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Perak ("PKNP"), in 2013 and the subsequent issuance of s 425 notices under the National Land Code 1965 ("NLC") by the Land Administrator in 2023, directing the Applicants to vacate the Lands.
[2] The Applicants challenged the validity of both the alienation of the Lands and the s 425 notices, asserting non-compliance with statutory procedures and alleging institutional conflicts of interest.
[3] The Applicants, who are in occupation of the Lands in question, claim that they have established rights or entitlements to the Lands, which predate the alienation to PKNP. The Respondents, in contrast, maintain that the Applicants are squatters with no lawful basis to remain on the Lands, and that the Lands were lawfully alienated to PKNP in 2013, rendering the s 425 notices issued in 2023 valid and enforceable.
Background Facts
[4] PKNP is the registered proprietor of the six plots of land known as PT 253451 HSD 214720, PT 253415 HSD 214684, PT 253416 HSD 214685, PT 253453 HSD 214722, PT 253451 HSD 214720, PT 253450 HSD 214719 along with a road reserve in Wilayah Kanthan, Mukim Hulu Kinta, Daerah Kinta, Perak ("the Lands").
[5] The Lands were originally state lands, and prior to the alienation, the Applicants had been in occupation of these lands for several years. While no formal title was ever issued to the Applicants, they contend that their occupation of the Lands was with the tacit approval or at least the acquiescence of the State Authority. The exact nature of the Applicants' use of the Lands varies, with some engaging in small-scale agricultural activities while others have erected residential structures.
[6] On 29 June 2013, the State Authority alienated the lands to PKNP, which is a statutory body tasked with promoting economic development in the State of Perak. The alienation was formalised through the issuance of titles, and PKNP was registered as the lawful proprietor of the lands.
[7] The Applicants allege that this alienation was irregular and unlawful, citing non-compliance with the procedural requirements of r 4 of the Perak Land Rules. Specifically, they argue that no formal application for the alienation of the lands was made by PKNP and that the requisite details were not recorded in the prescribed forms under the Rules.
[8] On 13 October 2023, the Land Administrator issued notices under s 425 of the NLC to the Applicants, informing them that their continued occupation of the Lands constituted an offence under the NLC and directing them to vacate the lands within seven days from the date of the s 425 Notices, ie by 20 October 2023.
[9] Between 24 October 2023 to 25 October 2023, PKNP has commenced works to repossess the Lands, including denying entry to all squatters from the Lands, stationing auxiliary police at the Lands, deploying excavators to remove plantation, piping, and structures on the Lands.
[10] The Applicants did not comply with the notices and instead commenced the present proceedings, seeking to challenge both the alienation of the lands and the validity of the s 425 notices.
[11] The Applicants insisted that they are not squatters and that they had occupied the said farming plots with the knowledge and consent of the State and PKNP pending them being given alter
