JUDGMENTBY: RAJA AZLAN SHAH CJ (MALAYA)

(delivering the judgment of the Court): In 1950 the appellants, numbering 377, came to Teluk Anson (now Teluk Intan) from Kedah, North Perak and Selangor and opened up a large part of a jungle area in the Mukim of Bandar, Teluk Anson. They were squatters. They now occupy an area of what is known as Kawasan Block D in a scheme known as Rancangan Seberang Perak Padi Cultivation Scheme, Kampong Gajah, in the District of Perak Tengah. Between 1950 and 1970 more and more settlers came and settled in the area. The matter became intolerable. So the State Government put up a plan to organise the settlement of these squatters. It divided the area into four blocks. Blocks A and B were allotted to the local settlers -- settlers from the State itself. Block C is given to FELCRA (Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority). Only ex-servicemen and youths were eligible. There were already 360 settlers who had occupied the land in Block C. They were re-settled in another area -- part of Block D where the appellants were already in occupation. Naturally the appellants were not happy with the new situation.

It is alleged that as a result of a meeting held in January 1977 between the pioneer settlers in Blocks C and D (including the appellants) and government officials including the District Officer, Perak Tengah, to find a solution to the problem arising from the re-settling of the 360 Block C settlers in Block D, the District Officer promised that each settler family would be given three acres of padi land subject to successful interviews to be held by the District Land Committee. The settlers did not agree to 3 acres; they wanted 5 acres. They complained to their Member of Parliament who, it would appear, could not do much for them. To make matters worse, Bernama was quoted as the source of an article in the Utusan Melayu issue of January 15, 1977, that the State Government proposed to open up about 10,000 acres of land at Seberang Perak to be developed by more than 1,000 persons who illegally pioneered the land in that area, and that the State Director of Lands and Mines, Haji Yang Rashidi b. Maasom, had said that each pioneer settler family would be given 5 acres of padi land. Utusan Zaman in an article dated January 23, 1977 also carried the same story.

It is further alleged that interviews were held subsequently; some settlers were successful and were given 3 acre lots in Block D; some others, including the appellants, were not successful. The appellants were given notice to stop work and to vacate the area.

They then filed a writ, asking for a declaration, inter alia, that they are entitled in law and in equity to be in possession of their respective lots in Block D, originally pioneered, opened up and occupied by them.

The respondents say that the appellants are not entitled in law and in equity to compel the State Government to give State land to them as they were and are in illegal occupation of State land. They admit that there was a meeting between the District Officer and the settlers in January 1977 but it was purely to explain to the settlers of the State Governments intention to allocate to each family an area of 3 acres subject to successful interviews. They deny that the articles in the newspapers were published by or under their authority or their servants or authorised agents.

The respondents applied under Order 18, rule 19, to strike out the appellants action on the grounds that they are squatters, and that it is within the sole discretion of the State Government to alienate State land.

The learned judge upheld the application. He said this:

"From the facts as disclosed in the statement of claim, the defence and

the affidavits, it is clear to me that the plaintiffs have no rights

against the State Government. Being mere tresspassers they cannot claim

title as against the State Government. Even though they have occupied

the land for a n