Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Grounds to challenge the acquisition - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Oriental Rubber and Oil Palms Sdn Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kuantan
        -Land Administrator to chair the enquiry
      - Jitender Singh a/l Pagar Singh & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan-there cannot be 2 different Land Administrators
      - Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act
    - - May challenge the land acquisition by way of judicial review on the grounds that the acquiring authority has acted contrary to the law
        
        Judicial review
        
        Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor- begins on the acceptance of Form E delivery.
        
        Sime Darby Plantation Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Melaka & Ors-when the respondent decided to pursue the land acquisition
        
        Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012
        
        Received Form E on 12th July 2019. The three months period does not necessarily run from the date of Form E and it ran when the land acquisition was pursued..
    - - The enquiry was not made by the Land Administrator, but it was made by the Director-General of the Planning Department who does not have power to chair any enquiry under the law.
  - - - It is up to the Land Administrator to determine the venue and it is not confined only to the Land Office.
    - - There is no improper inquiry with regard to the venue of enquiry
    - - Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act
      - Form E
- - - - Must have received notice; Form E or Form F
      - Section 38: Objection made in written application in Form N, within 6 weeks after compensation awarded
        
        Draman b. Kassim v Land Administrator, Hulu Terengganu
        The appellant referred to the High Court as compensation is too low. High Court increased the compensation from RM4800 per acre to RM7000 per acre.
        
        Damansara Jaya Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Petaling - objector is entitled to object the award
        
        Ng Tiou Hong v Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak where the owners being dissatisfied with the compensation hence referred to the High Court.
      - Section 2: includes every person claiming an interest in compensation to be made on the land
    - - Section 30(b) - any person interested who has received the amount awarded is entitled to make his claim to the Court under section 37 provided it was under protest.
- - - - Ng Kim Moi & Ors. v. PTD Seremban & Anor:
        The appellants complain that the acquisition was in violation of the law in that forms A and B prescribed by the Act were never issued and that forms D, E and F though issued were not served.
        
        Majority decision was that issuance of form B and serve of form F are not mandatory, and the same goes to notification in form A
        
        Gopal Sri Ram (dissenting judgment):
        Since the Land Acquisition Act is a statute that is aimed at deprivation of property, courts require the acquiring authority to strictly act in accordance with the terms of the Act.
        The word “shall” in section 4 of the Act indicates that the notification in Form A is mandatory.
        Since there was a clear violation of a mandatory provision of the LAA 1960, it contravened Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.
        
        Adopted by the court in the case of Ee Chong Pang & Ors. v The Land Administrator of the District of Alor Gajah & Anor where it was held that the issuance of Form A is mandatory and the failure of the SA to comply with this mandatory provision means that the land acquisition was not done in accordance with the law.
        
        KL Kepong Bhd v Selangor State Govt & Anor:
        The land was acquired for the expansion of a landfill in Jeram, Kuala Selangor. In an application for judicial review to quash the decision to acquire the land, the applicant argued that the failure to gazette Form A resulted in the land acquisition being void.
        Held: Even where form A has not been gazetted, it does not affect the land acquisition proceedings. (Ee Chong Pang's has been overruled