Gunalan Muniandy JC:

[1]This is an originating summons by which the plaintiff applied for leave to enlarge time to file objections against the compensation awarded to the plaintiff by the Land Administrator Johor Bahru (first defendant — ‘D1’) in respect of acquisition of land held under Grant 2927, Lot 1818 and Grant 27360, Lot 2026, Mukim Sg Tiram, Johor Bahru.

[2]The second defendant (‘D2’) is a body incorporated under the Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1980 (‘HAMA 1980’) and also a statutory agency functioning under the Ministry of Public Works Malaysia under s 11HAMA 1980

[3]The present acquisition arose out of the government’s decision, in principle, to construct the Senai Pasir Gudang Desaru Expressway (‘the Highway Project’). As a result, the above lands (Lots 1818 and 2026) of which plaintiff was the registered owner, were acquired vide Gazette Notification No 2390 dated 18 November 2004 under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (‘LAA’).

[4]Lot 1818 was 431,369 sq mt in area out of which an area of 6,219,005 sq mt was acquired whereas for Lot 2026 the portion acquired was 318,550.739 sq mt out of a total land area of 11,347,367 sq mt.

INQUIRY HELD BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT

[5]Based on this inquiry, the first defendant (‘D1’) awarded vide two separate Forms Gs 14LAA 19602026. In accordance with s 16(1)LAAForms H

[6]D2 was the paymaster for the above acquisition. As required under the LAA 1960, D2 forwarded to D1 cheques for the total compensation awarded in respect of both lots.

[7]As the time frame to file objections (Form Ns 38(3)(c)LAA 1960Form NForm N2026, D2 did not proceed with the application for extension of time and hence, to date there is no objection filed against this award.

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF ESTOPPED FROM FILING OBJECTIONS

[8]D2 submitted that based on the two Forms H, the plaintiff had unequivocally and unconditionally accepted D1’s award of compensation for both lots. The plaintiff had at no time after 8 December 2005 or 17 January 2006 filed any protest or objections with D1 to the compensation awarded for either or both of the two lots or as to the apportionment of compensation thereof as stated in the respective Forms GHForm G2026 and 75% of the compensation award in respect of Lot 1818 amounting to RM6,333,600. As such, it was contended that the plaintiff should be estopped from applying to the court for leave to file Form NSection 37LAA 1960Lee Ah Mok & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seremban & Anor

The locus or right to apply to court to challenge the award is governed by s 37Land Acquisition Act 1960s 30(b)

[9]On the issue of the finality and conclusiveness of the award where s 37LAAMalakoff Bhd & Anor v Pentadbir Tanah, Kedah

The respondent as the Land Administrator cannot invoke s 37s 37Hamidon bin Ahmad v Collector of Land Revenue, Jasin Exra v Secretary of State for India (1905) ILR 32 Cal 605 PC distinguished.

[10]The thrust of the present application is that D1 had committed an ‘administrative error’ in the apportionment of the award for Lot 1818 and Lot 2026. This is being raised for the first time six years after issuance of Forms GHs 14(2)LAA 1960

Every award prepared under subsection (1) shall be filed in the Dffice of the Land Administrator and shall be final and conclusive evidence of the area of any scheduled land, of its value in the opinion of the Land Administrator, and of the apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Land Administrator, whether the persons interested therein have or have not appeared at the enquiry.

[11]As the plaintiff had accepted full payment of the award in respect of Lot 2026 and 75% payment in respect of Lot 1818, without protest or objections s 30(b)LAA 1960

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29 —

(b)any person who has received any payment of any amount awarded otherwise than under protest shall not be entitled to require that his claim be referred to the Court under section 37.

[12]Section 30(b) is a mandatory provision governing a landowner’s en