Richard Talalla JC

The plaintiffs were the owners of the land held under EMR 77 lot 117, mukim of Tebrau, Johore Bahru. Pursuant to the provisions of s 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('the Act'), the state authority may acquire any land which is needed by any person or corporation undertaking a work which in the opinion of the state authority is of public utility. In this instance, the state authority means the Ruler of the State of Johore, see s 2(1) of the Act. Hereafter reference to sections means sections of the Act. The state authority wished to acquire a part of the plaintiffs' said land, some 19,802 sq ft thereof. The appropriate steps were taken as required by the provisions of the Act. In particular, notice of intended acquisition was gazetted pursuant to ss 10 and 52. Notice of inquiry was issued also under s 10. The second defendant, 'the Collector', conducted an inquiry as required by s 12 whereafter an award ('the award') was made under s 14. Notice of award and offer of compensation was served on the plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of s 16. On 11 July 1982, the plaintiffs through their solicitors accepted the offer. In the event, the Collector, following ss 29 and 29A, paid to the plaintiffs compensation of $306,750 representing 75% of the award, withholding 25% thereof.

The first defendant, the Director of Public Works Department Johore ('the Director'), acting under s 37(3) filed an objection. As required by s 38(1), the objection was by written application to the Collector and under s 38(5), the Collector referred the matter to this court for determination. See Land Reference No 12 of 1984.

In this originating summons, the plaintiffs are seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Director is not entitled to object to the award and the Collector must pay in full the compensation he has offered.

Section 37(1) and (3) of the Act is as follows:

(1) Any person interested in any scheduled land who, pursuant to any notice under sections 10 or 11, has made a claim to the Collector in due time and who has not accepted the Collector's award thereon, or has accepted payment of the amount of such award under protest as to the sufficiency thereof, may, subject to the provisions of this section, make objection to:

(a) the measurement of the land;

(b) the amount of the compensation;

(c) the persons to whom it is payable;

(d) the apportionment of the compensation.

(3) Where the total amount of any award in respect of any scheduled land exceeds fifteen thousand ringgit any Government or any person or corporation undertaking a work which in the opinion of the State Authority is of public utility, and on whose behalf such land was acquired pursuant to the provisions of s 3, shall be deemed to be a person interested in any scheduled land under the provisions of subsection (1), and may make objections on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1).

The plaintiffs' case is that there has been an offer by the Collector which the plaintiffs have accepted, that therefore the Collector must pay the compensation accepted and the matter should end there. Under the circumstances, so it is argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, there is no question of the Director being entitled to object or having the matter referred to court, that indeed the plaintiffs themselves are precluded from doing so (see s 30(b)), they having received payment otherwise than under protest. The plaintiffs say that this is quite clear because under s 43(c) whilst all persons interested in the objection are entitled to notice of hearing of the objection by the court, they are not; they being persons who have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded. What is more, the plaintiffs say, under s 44(2) the court is required to consider the interests of all persons interested who have not accepted the award and that excludes them because they have accepted the award.

The plaintiffs concede that the Director is a person undertak