Leading case on squatter’s rights in Malaysia
Facts of the Case
In 1950, the Appellants came to Teluk Intan, Perak and open up a large part of a jungle area and occupy an area now known as Kampong Gajah. They were squatters. between 1950 and 1970, other settlers also came and settled in that area. The state Government then organise the settlement of these squatters. some of the settlers were re-settled to the area which the appellants were already in occupation. It is alleged that a meeting took place in January 1977 between the appellants and the government officials. It was alleged that the District Officer promised that each settler family would be given 3 acres of padi land (land used for the cultivation of paddy) subject to successful interviews held by the District Land Committee. At that time, Utusan Melayu and Utusan Zaman had published an article that the State Director of Lands and Mines had said that each settler family would be given 5 acres of padi land.
Some of the settlers were successful in getting the 3 acres land. However, some of them including the appellants were unsuccessful and they were given notice to stop work and vacate the area. Therefore, they had filed a writ to obtain a declaration that they are entitled in law and in equity to be in possession of the lands they occupied. The respondents disagreed and applied to the Court to strike out the appellants’ action on the grounds that they are squatters and it is within the sole discretion of the State Government to alienate State land. The appellants’ action was struck out by the Court and thus this appeal.
Issue of the Case
Whether the appellants, as squatters have a cause of action against the respondents, the State Government?
Judgment of the Case
The learned judge had upheld the striking out application by the respondent and said that the facts clearly shows that the appellants have no right against the State Government. Being mere trespassers, they cannot acquire possession of the land from the State Government even though they had occupied the land for years. It is clearly stated under section 48 of the National Land Code (“NLC”) which states that:
“No title to State land shall be acquired by possession, unlawful occupation or occupation under any licence for any period whatsoever.”
The Federal Court held that it is clear beyond doubt that the appellants’ action cannot succeed because they are squatters. Squatters have no right in law or in equity. Reference is also made to section 78(3) of NLC which states that title of state land can only be acquired by way of alienation and alienation of state land shall take effect upon the registration of a register document of title and notwithstanding that is alienation has been approved by the State Authority, the land shall remain State land until it is registered. Section 341 of NLC also empowers State Authority to remove squatters at any time as there is no limitation period which operate to bar the proprietor to bring an action against the squatters. Furthermore, it is an offence under section 341 of NLC to occupy State land which the offender can be liable to fine not exceeding RM5,000.00 or/and imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.
The Appellant argued that the State Government had promised them land based on what the State Director of Lands and Mines allegedly said in the newspaper, Utusan Melayu and therefore the government should keep their promise.
The Court held that State Director of Lands and Mines had no authority to bind the State Government even if he had made the promise to the appellants. The only way to obtain State Land is by way of the NLC. This falls under the broad principle that “where an Act creates an obligation, and empowers the obligation in a specified manner, we take it as a general rule that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner" (see Doe d. Rochester (Bp) v. Bridges 109 ER 1001, 1006). Applying the principle to the current case, it cannot have been the Parliament in enacting the National Land Code that every person who was in need of land should be able to sue the government for it or take the law into his own hands for this purpose.
For these reasons, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Principle of the Case
The title of State Land can only be acquired by way of alienation accordance with the provisions of National Land Code.
Squatters have no right of action against the State government as they have no right either in law or in equity.
Comments