Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Extent of Ownership and Enjoyment of Land, Natural rights under s44 NLC,…

- - - - Decision of Dalton v Angus [Application in MY]
        
        Ohna Mohamed Abu Bakar v Tho Yan Poh: The plaintiff was a tenant of a shop house with a 999-year government lease (This case was before NLC enacted). The building collapsed due to excavation work by the defendants, who were also leaseholders of a 999-year government lease on adjoining land. The court ruled that the case of Dalton v Angus was relevant. It stated that a right to lateral support from neighboring land can be acquired through open and uninterrupted use of that support for 20 years.
        
        Yong Joo Lin v Fung Poi Fong: After 30 years of occupation, the plaintiff claimed a right to support (an easement of support) from the defendants, who owned the adjoining land. The defendants argued that the common law rule, which presumed that an easement has been lawfully acquired after proof of uninterrupted user of 20 years did not apply in FMS. The court ruled that the common law doctrine is applicable in FMS.
        
        Singapore Application (reversed the decision/ rule in D v A)
        
        Xpress Print Pte Ltd. V Monocrafts Pte Ltd. & Anor: The principle grants a landowner the right to support for their buildings from neighboring lands starting from the time the buildings are constructed.
  - - - The main point is that under common law, only land in its natural state has an absolute right to lateral support from adjoining land. Since the plaintiff’s pond was an artificial excavation created by mining and then filled with water, it does not qualify for this right to lateral support.
- - - - General: Foreshore is the land between the high watermark and the seabed @ highest and lowest point reached by water, while the seabed is the sea floor.
        
        s5 NLC: Foreshore is land between shoreline and low watermark of ordinary spring tides.
    - - Thus, CL principle of accretion (gradual and natural process of increased area of land) is not applicable in Peninsular MY.
        
        CL: Land formed by the slow and gradual retreat of the sea or a river belongs to owner of land enlarged.
      - Before coming of NLC, the situation was different.
        
        Re Sithambaram Chettiar (1955): The applicant owned land that, in 1925, was next to the sea. Over the years, the sea encroached on the land, and by 1933, most of it was submerged at high tide. However, the sea gradually receded, and the land became dry again. The Collector denied the applicant's claim to the land, stating that it had become Crown property due to the slow rise of the high water mark over the years. The applicant sought a certiorari (review) order. The court ruled that a landowner whose property is gradually covered by the sea is entitled to reclaim it once it is dry again due to the water's retreat.
        
        After NLC
        
        Govt of the State of Penang & Anor v BH Onn & Ors (1971): The FC court ruled that respondent's land in Province Wellesley affected by the sea's encroachment no longer belongs to the original owner. An appeal was made but was dismissed, and FC's decision was upheld.
        
        This principle applies equally to land that the sea has gradually retreated from, becomes State land, and the owner loses that portion unless the Chief Surveyor decides otherwise.