JUDGMENT

Jeffrey Tan JCA:

[1] This appeal against the order dated 18 December 2007 of the High Court at Johor Bahru declaring that the appellant/defendant, also known as the Highway Authority of Malaysia, was not entitled to lodge a Form N under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA 1960), and that the said Form N lodged by the appellant was "wrong, void, invalid and of no legal effect", which we heard and allowed on 13 May 2009, came about in the following circumstances.

[2] The plaintiff was the registered owner of land held under PTD 171003 HS(M) 2996 Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru, Negeri Johor (the said land). On 18 November 2004, the Johor State Authority caused to be published in the Gazette the following declaration (Form D under the LAA 1960) that the said land was required for a public purpose.

It is hereby declared that the particular lands and areas specified in the Schedule hereto are needed for the following purpose:

Land Acquisition Under Paragraph (sic)3(1)(a) Of The Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486), For The Purpose Of The Construction Of Senai-Pasir Gudang-Desaru Expressway, Mukim Senai-Kulai, Tebrau, Plentong And Sungai Tiram, Johor Bahru For Ministry Of Public Works, Malaysia.

[3] Upon the conclusion of the enquiry under s. 12 of the LAA 1960, the Land Administrator awarded RM30,734,903 to the respondent, as compensation for the acquisition of 19.825 hectares or 198,224.714 square metres of the said land. That award was accepted by the respondent, but was objected to by the appellant, who filed, on 25 May 2006, an 'Application That An Objection Be Referred To Court' in the requisite Form N. That Form N stated that the appellant was a person interested pursuant to s. 37(3) of the LAA 1960. Pursuant to the provisions of s. 29A of the LAA 1960, the Land Administrator withheld 25% of the amount of the said award for payment to the respondent. On 7 February 2007, that is, some nine months later, the respondent applied to the High Court for declarations (i) that the appellant was not entitled, even prohibited, to file the said Form N pursuant to s. 38(1) of the LAA 1960, and (ii) that the said Form N was wrong, void, invalid and of no legal effect.

[4] Legal submissions in the High Court had proceeded along the following lines. The respondent submitted that the said land was acquired by the state authority for a public purpose under s. 3(1)(a), that the said Form N was lodged on the basis that the appellant was a person interested in the said land, that it is s. 3(1)(b) that provides for the acquisition of land by any person or corporation, and that the acquisition of the said land, it being under s. 3(1)(a), ruled out the involvement of the appellant. In support, the respondent cited the case of Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan (Pemerbadanan) v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seremban & Anor [1995] 4 CLJ 477. The appellant submitted that it was a body corporate established under s. 3(1) of the Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1980 ('HAMA'), that s. 22 of HAMA empowered the appellant to acquire land in accordance with written law relating to acquisition of land, that the State Authority may acquire the land for the appellant, that the words 'public purpose' included the purpose of the appellant, as the appellant was involved in the Gudang-Desaru Expressway project, (the appellant cited the case of Universiti Malaya & Anor v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [2003] 2 CLJ 605, that the Ministry of Public Works, Malaysia and the Malaysian Government under HAMA, had charged the appellant with the task to supervise and execute inter-urban highways including the Senai-Pasir Gudang Expressway, that the appellant had to acquire lands under the LAA 1960 to realise those projects, that the acquisition of the said land, although by the State Authority, was for the public purpose of the (construction of) said Expressway, and therefore involved the appellant and that the appellant was a person inte