No land can be acquired by possession, unlawful occupation or occupation under any license.
Facts of the Case
The respondents used to live in houses built by them on lands in Rahang Kecil, Seremban rented from the proprietor, Seremban Enterprise Ltd. In April 1972, they were informed that part of the lands had been acquired by the State Government for a road widening project. They accepted compensation for the land acquisition and were offered allotted lots of land in Ulu Temiang, Seremban for resettlement.
The respondents were allowed by the Collector of Land Revenue (now known as District Land Administrator / Pentadbir Tanah Daerah) to build houses on their respective lots. They have also submitted their application for alienation of the land allotted to them.
In May 1981, the lands occupied by the respondents were alienated to Lesco Development Corporation (“Lesco”) for a term of 99 years by the State Government. As Lesco planned to develop the land into a housing estate known as Taman Muhibbah, the respondents and other families who had settled there were called to quit and deliver up vacant possession of the lands. Lesco had offered the settlers compensation, option to purchase a low cost house in the proposed housing estate at a reduced price and temporary accommodation in the meanwhile. Some of the settlers accepted the offer but the respondents refused the offer and proceed to claim against the appellant for two main issues namely whether the respondents have acquired an equitable right or interest to remain on the respective lots allocated to them and whether the alienation of the land in question to Lesco is bad in law and therefore void.
At the High Court, it was held that the respondents were temporary occupation licensees on the doctrine of promissory estoppel as the Collector had promised the respondent that they would be allowed to remain on their allotted land on a permanent basis and would be given leases for a term of 99 years. Lesco had notice of the circumstances regarding the land, thus Lesco was ordered to pay monetary compensation and respondents were to quit and vacate the lands. For the second issue, it was held that the alienation of land to Lesco was not illegal or void. The Government of the State of Negeri Sembilan and the Commissioner of Lands and Mines, Negeri Sembilan appeal whereas the respondent cross-appeal to the Federal Court.
Issue of the Case
whether the respondents have acquired an equitable right or interest to remain on the respective lots allocated to them?
whether the alienation of the land in question to Lesco is bad in law and therefore void?
Judgment of the Case
First Issue
The respondents claimed that the Collector had promised them that they would be allowed to remain on the land on a permanent basis and they would be given leases for a term of 99 years in respect of the lots allocated to them. They claimed that they have acquired an equitable right or interest to remain on the land.
The court ruled that the Collector had no authority to commit the State Authority even if he had given his assurances (Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & Ors. v. The Government of the State of Perak & Ors. [1982] 1 MLJ 313). Under section 13 of the National Land Code (“NLC”) the State Authority may by notification in the Gazette delegate its power or duties to the Collector. The notification in the Gazette (NSPU No. 19 of 1969) put forward by the Acting Director of Lands and Mines shows that the Collector has only been delegated with authority to approve the conversion of land not exceeding three acres in area for agricultural purposes and has no power to alienate land for housing.
Section 48 of the NLC states that no title to State land shall be acquired by possession, unlawful occupation or occupation under any licence for any period whatsoever. Section 78(3) of the NLC states that the alienation of State land shall take effect upon the registration of a register document of title thereto pursuant to the provisions referred to in sub-section (1) or (2), and notwithstanding that its alienation has been approved by the State Authority, the land shall remain State land until that time.
The Court referred to the decision in Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kota Tinggi v United Malayan Banking Corporation Berhad [1981] 2 MLJ 264 and held that when there are specific legislative provisions, equity could not be applied to interfere. Therefore, the statutory provisions mentioned above have excluded the application of any equity in regard to the respondent’s claim.
Second Issue
The land in Ulu Temiang alienated to Lesco under five titles is part of a piece of land gazetted in 1927 as a vegetable garden reserve. Before the land was alienated to Lesco, the reserve was revoked from only four out of the five titles.
section. 62(4) of the NLC states that reserved land shall not be (a) disposed of by the State Authority except, to paraphrase its provisions, by way of lease for a period not exceeding twenty one years in accordance with the provisions of section 63 or by way of a temporary occupation licence or a permit for the extraction and removal of rock material as provided for in the requisite provisions of the Code, or (b) used for any purpose other than that for which it is reserved except in pursuance of a disposition made by virtue of any of the provisions referred to in paragraph(a). Section 64 of the NLC makes provision for the revocation of the reservation of any land for a public purpose, and the procedure therefor is strictly stipulated in sub-section (2) thereof. Section 5 of the NLC defines ‘disposal’ to mean any disposal of land made by the State Authority. In short, the land could not be disposed by the State Authority unless it had been revoked from being a reserved land.
The respondents said that they have submitted their applications for alienation of their respective lots by way of State leases and this shows that they have genuine interest in the land and allows them the capacity to sue. They tried to argue that the land alienated to Lesco included part of a reserved land which resulted the alienation to be invalid.
The Court held that section 64 of the NLC is a mandatory requirement which is necessary to comply before the land can be alienated. However, the affected area in this case is comparatively minimal and the reservation can be revoked at any time and even retrospectively and the Acting Director of Lands and Mines has testified that it is intended to be carried out. Thus, the court did not grant the declaration to invalidate the alienation of the land to Lesco.
Principle of the Case
No land can be acquired by possession, unlawful occupation or occupation under any license.
Yorumlar