Kenneth St James J:

(Jurisdiction And Sufficiency Of Order 53 Statement)

Prelude

[1] The applicant: Sime Darby Plantation Berhad (Sime Darby) filed a judicial review application against the statutory acquisition of 18 pieces of land that it owned. Sime Darby refers to the acquisition as "the 2019 wrongful acquisition".

[2] The 3rd Respondent: the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) raised two preliminary points to object to Sime Darby's judicial review application. The other respondents supported these objections. These objections apply to 17 out of the 18 lots of land. (The objections do not apply to Lot 1377.)

[3] The two preliminary objections are that:

(1) as Sime Darby's judicial review application was filed outside of the mandatory time limit to file a judicial review application, this court has no jurisdiction to determine it; and

(2) Sime Darby's mandatory O 53 r 3(2) statement (Order 53 Statement) is insufficient, in that it does not set out the very grounds on which Sime Darby applies for this judicial review.

[4] Should either or both of these objections be accepted and render Sime Darby's judicial review application incompetent or defective? Or, should these objections be rejected, so that the judicial review application could be heard on its merits?

The Jurisdiction Issue — Filing The Judicial Review Application Out Of Time

The Time Limit Under Order 53 Rule 3(6)

[5] Order 53 r 3(6) of the Rules of 2012 (ROC) provides that a judicial review application must be filed "within three months" from the date "when the grounds of application first arose" or "when the decision is first communicated to the applicant".

[6] The court can extend this three-month time limit, but it must be "upon an application", i.e. the applicant must make a formal application to extend the time limit. And by necessity, the applicant must give "a good reason" to justify an extension of the time limit.

[7] Order 53 r 3(6) and r 3(7) are set out below for reference (with my emphases added):

Leave (O 53 r 3)

3. (1)...

.

.

(6) An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.

(7) The court may, upon an application, extend the time specified in r 3(6) if it considers that there is a good reason for doing so.

The Pertinent Provisions Of The Land Acquisition Act

[8] The relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA), which outline the land acquisition procedure, from the declaration of an intended acquisition to the commencement of the land acquisition proceeding, are ss 8, 9 and 10.

[9] The pertinent portions of ss 8, 9 and 10 of the LAA are set out below (with my emphases added):

Section 8. Declaration that land is needed under s 3.

(1) When the State Authority decides that any of the lands referred to in s 7 are needed for any of the purposes referred to in s 3, a declaration in Form D shall be published in the Gazette.

(2) A copy of the list of lands referred to in para 7(1)(b), amended, if necessary, in accordance with the decision of the State Authority, shall be included as a schedule to the declaration in Form D.

(3) A declaration in Form D shall be conclusive evidence that all the scheduled land referred to therein is needed for the purpose specified therein...

Section 9. Land to be marked out and notice entered on register, etc.

(1) Upon the publication pursuant to s 8 of the declaration in Form D that any land is needed for the purpose specified in such Form, then:

(a) ...

(b) the Land Administrator or other registering authority shall make a note of the intended acquisition in the manner specified in subsection (2).

(2) The note of the intended acquisition required by paragraph (1)(b) shall be made:

(a) where the scheduled land is held by registered title:

(i) on the register document of title; and...

Section 10. Land Administrator to commence proceedings.

(1) The Land Administrator shall, h