SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 MarsdenLR 1349

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LEO LESLIE ARMSTRONG – Appellant
Versus
JAWATANKUASA KERJA TANAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(NCVC)(A)-114-03-2013]



The court ruled that the alteration of land tenure from freehold to leasehold was ultra vires, emphasizing that time limitations do not apply to acts done without jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Section 204, 204E - Land tenure alteration - Appellant challenged change of land tenure from freehold to leasehold as ultra vires, 45 years post-approval - High Court found action statute-barred, focusing on time elapsed since decision and benefits reaped - Court ruled decision was ultra vires; limitation does not apply to acts without jurisdiction. (Paras 42, 45, 48)

(B) The principle of laches - Determined that without acquiescence, laches does not bar claims; appellant's delay not acquiescence - Equitable remedies not applicable in unlawful circumstances (Paras 47, 52).

(C) Judicial Review - The court accepts that an ordinary action or O 53 applications are allowable when public authority acts infringing private rights. (Paras 43, 44).

Facts of the case:
The appellant owned Lot 152 and sought subdivision for leasing purposes. Post-approval in 1966, consent was given for tenure change. A claim against the respondent was raised 45 years later.

Findings of Court:
The decision that altered the land tenure was ruled ultra vires, and the High Court's view on time limitations was erroneous.

Issues: Whether the Land Administrator’s decision was ultra vires, and the applicability of statute of limitations.

Ratio Decidendi: The tenure change was unlawful as the administrator lacked authority, thus nullifying the decision despite time elapsed. Decision cannot be barred by statute since it was ultra vires.

Result: Appeal allowed; orders granted for rectification but not a direct reinstatement.

Table of Content
1. factual background on land tenure and subdivision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments around ultra vires claim and procedural issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court observations on statutory provisions affecting land tenure. (Para 11 , 12 , 28)
4. arguments regarding the validity and timing of the appellant’s application. (Para 13)
5. high court's view on the lack of retrospective effect of prior rulings. (Para 16 , 18 , 19)
6. legal reasoning regarding misuse and limits of discretionary powers under land codes. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 , 32)
7. decision that past actions and delays do not affect the validity of ultra vires claims. (Para 22 , 41 , 45 , 50)
8. principle established regarding ultra vires actions of public authorities. (Para 26 , 37 , 38 , 39)

[1] The appellant was the registered owner of a piece of land held under grant 4541, Lot 152, Section 55, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan (referred to as "Lot 152"). The area of Lot 152 was 4 acres 3 rods and 38 poles. In 1996, Lot 152 was held under the name of 'The President and Committee for the time being of The Young Men's Christian Association of Kuala Lumpur'. The tenure of Lot 152 was freehold.

[2] Sometime in 1966, the appellant submitted an application to the Collector of Land Revenue Kuala Lumpur, Selangor for subdivision of Lot 152 into two lots. The purpose of the subdivision was to enable the appellant to use one of the Lots as a site for petrol station and to lease it to Exxon Mobil Malaysia as a source of income for the appellant.

[3] On 1 July 1966, the Collector of Land Revenue Kuala Lumpur informed the appellant that the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor had approved its application for subdivision by letter of the same date. The subdivision was approved subject to terms and conditions stated in the approval letter. One of the conditions is that the tenure of land holding would be changed to 30 years lease instead of freehold land as the original land tenure before the subdivision. for full appreciation of the terms and conditions of the subdivision, the full contents of the letter by the Collector of Land Revenue dated 1 July 1966 to the appellant is re-produced below:

[4] By letter dated 9 August 1966 addressed to Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kuala Lumpur, the appellant informed the Pemungut Hasil Tanah that the trustees of the appellant had met with regard to the Pemungut Hasil Tanah's approval letter dated 1 July 1966 approving the subdivision and informed the Pemungut Hasil Tanah that they have agreed to the terms laid down in the letter by the Pemungut Hasil Tanah approving the subdivision. In other words, it implies that the appellant accepted the change of the tenure of the land holding from freehold to leasehold upon the approval of the subdivision.

[5] Consequent to the subdivision approval, Lot 152 was divided into two lots. The first and the bigger lot (which is meant for use by the appellant) is now known as Lot 524 held under PN 33501 Section 55, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan (referred to as "Lot A") and the tenure is 99 years. The second and smaller lot (which was eventually leased to Exxonmobil Malaysia Sdn Bhd for use as petrol station) is known as PT 27 held under HS(D) 100586 Section 55, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan (referred to as "Lot B") and the tenure is 30 years.

[6] In 1974, there was a restructuring of the posts in the administration of land in Wilayah Persekutuan arising from the separation of Kuala Lumpur from the State of Selangor. The Jawatankuasa held by the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor was taken over by the respondent.

[7] On 19 December 2011, about 45 years after the respondent's predecessor approved the subdivision and upon which approval the land tenure was changed from freehold to leasehold, the appellant filed an originating summons against the respondent seeking the following declarations:

"1 Satu perisytih

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top