Vernon Ong JC

[1]The plaintiffs were participants in a FELCRA agricultural project for the planting of oil palm in Johor. In 2001 the land was reacquired by the Johor State Government (the second and third defendants) and the plaintiffs received compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory orders affecting their rights as participants and for loss and damages for being dispossessed of their respective land holdings in the said project.

THE FACTS AS DISCLOSED IN THE EVIDENCE

[2]In 1994 the Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (Felcra) (the first defendant) invited the plaintiffs to take part in a project for the development of an oil palm plantation known as Felcra Tebing Runtuh (‘FTR’). By a letter dated 4 April 1995 the Menteri Besar Johor agreed in principle that the FTR land be alienated to the plaintiffs. On 22 July 1995 there was a meeting between representatives of the first defendant, the Pentadbir Daerah Tanah Johor Bahru (second defendant) and third defendant, a representative of a political party and the plaintiffs’ representative one Madon bin Johan (‘PW4’). The land on which FTR was located was scheduled for the development of the Malaysia-Singapore second link. They expressed dissatisfaction with the low and unreasonable compensation given by United Engineering Malaysia Bhd. The meeting agreed that in order to overcome this problem the plaintiffs be alienated with titles of their respective lands. The plaintiffs were required to execute an agreement with the first defendant and PW4 was asked to explain the situation to the plaintiffs. In 1995 all the plaintiffs entered into separate and individual agreements with the first defendant (‘the agreement’); the agreement were only dated and stamped in 1997. The agreement took effect retrospectively from 15 August 1994. The plaintiffs in suit 637 were each allotted one unit of share equivalent to six acres of land and provided with houses constructed by the first defendant. The plaintiffs in suit 638 were each allotted one unit of share each for the value of four acres of land; they were not provided with houses by the first defendant. In 2001 the plaintiffs each received compensation amounting to RM358,688.58 consisting of RM173,688.58 in cash, a plot of land valued at RM135,000 together with a house valued at RM50,000 erected thereon and asked to leave FTR. The third defendant has taken back the FTR land for the development of ‘Projek Laluan Kedua Malaysia-Singapura Dan Pembangunan Bandar Nusa Jaya.’

THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE

[3]The plaintiffs contend that they have rights and interest in their respective landholding of one shares each consisting of four or six acres in FTR. Under the National Land Rehabilitation and Consolidation Authority (Incorporation) Act 1966Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act 1960Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486)

THE FIRST DEFENDANT’S CASE

[4]The first defendant was appointed by the third defendant to develop FTR. The first defendant’s duty is limited to the rehabilitation and development of the land for the purpose of cultivation of oil palm plantation. The land was not gazetted under the GSA Act. The selection of the participants for the FTR project was not within the first defendant’s control; it was vested in the third defendant. Under the National Land Code only the power to alienate the land is vested in the sole discretion of the third defendant and not the first defendant. The plaintiffs have been discharged from further performance under the agreement upon receipt of the compensation (Basnol Abol & Ors v The State Government of Sarawak & other appeals Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors v The Government of the State of Perak & Ors Law Pang Ching & Ors v Tawau Municipal Council Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu ss 121920GSA ActZainal Abidin v Century Hotel Sdn Bhd HP Projects Sdn Bhd v Investprop (M) Sdn Bhd

THE SECOND AND THIRD DEFENDANTS’ CASE

[5]The plaintiffs have no legal rights in the land under the FTR. The t