Raus Sharif JCA:

[1] I have had the advantage of reading my learned brother Abdul Malik Ishaks judgment and I am in agreement with him in allowing this appeal. However, I would like to express my own reasons for doing so.

Background Facts

[2] Kerajaan Negeri Perlis ("2nd defendant") decided to build a dam at Timah Tasoh, Perlis. It was also decided that the villagers displaced by the dam project were to be resettled in an area known as Lubuk Sireh.

[3] The resettlement of the villagers was coordinated by Jawatankuasa Rayuan Penempatan Semula Empangan Timah Tasoh ("Timah Tasoh Committee"). The Timah Tasoh Committee was headed by a member of the "State Executive Council" ("1st defendant") for the "Land, Forest and Environment Portfolio". The resettlement started in April 1987 and continued in stages as follows:-

[4] The plaintiffs were amongst the villagers who were resettled at Lubuk Sireh. In agreeing to do so, they received cash compensation and/or payment from the 2nd defendant for their loss of land, houses, etc. For those who owned lands, the 2nd defendant paid them compensation pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The plaintiffs also received from the 2nd defendant a plot of land to build their houses. They have obtained their titles to these plots of land and have each built their houses there.

[5] In tendem with the resettlement programme, the 2nd defendant had invited Lembaga Penyatuan dan Pemulihan Tanah Persekutuan ("3rd defendant") also known as "Felcra" to develop the state land at Lubuk Sireh into an agricultural estate. Felcra started its role and development programme in 1986, covering an area of 2,153 hectares mainly planted with rubber trees. The resettlement area and the agricultural estate are all in the same area.

Plaintiffs Case

[6] It is the plaintiffs case that as a result of the negotiations between the plaintiffs and the defendants, it was agreed that in consideration of them moving to Lubuk Sireh, the 2nd defendant had promised to provide them not only compensation for loss of land, houses, etc and a plot of land to build their houses, they were also promised participation in the agricultural estate undertaken by Felcra. In fact it is the contention of the plaintiffs that not only were they being promised participation at the Felcra scheme at the material time, they were and had already been accepted and recognised as participants of the scheme. They pointed out that they were resettled at Lubuk Sireh to enable them to participate in the Felcra scheme as their resettlement at Lubuk Sireh was part and parcel of Rancangan Felcra Lubuk Sireh.

1st And 2nd defendants Case

[7] The 1st and 2nd defendants case is that the offer made to the plaintiffs to participate in the scheme was conditional and not final. The final decision was only made on 17 November 1999, after interviews were conducted between 26 June 1999 till 29 June 1999 to select the successful candidates. It is also contended by the 1st and 2nd defendants that it is the privilege and prerogative as well as the discretion of the 1st defendant in making the final decision on the allotment of shares in the scheme to the participants.

3rd Defendants Case

[8] The Felcras case is simple. Felcra only played the role as assigned to it under s 5(1)(a) of the Felcra Act and would develop the land at Lubuk Sireh based on the instruction of the 1st defendant. According to the 3rd defendant, the decision to choose the participants and allocate them land rights are entirely within the powers of the 1st and 2nd defendants.

Issues & Findings

(i) Whether The Plaintiffs Have Been Selected And Accepted As Participants

[9] The learned trial judge held that the plaintiffs have had never been selected and accepted as participants of Felcra scheme, Lubuk Sireh. With utmost respect, I am unable to hold the same. In holding as such, I am fully aware that I am reversing the learned trial judges finding of fact and conscious of the guiding principle that appellate court oug