SISTEM LINGKARAN LEBUHRAYA KAJANG SDN BHD v 1. ) ORCHARD CIRLCE SDN BHD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat

Case Significance

Holds that a surrender of land not formalised in accordance with the requirements of Part Twelve of the National Land Code, including a memorial on the register under section 201(4), is ineffective for the assessment of compulsory-acquisition compensation.

This Federal Court decision, delivered by majority, concerns the valuation of compensation on the compulsory acquisition of land where the acquiring authority contended that part of the land had earlier been surrendered to the State, so that only a nominal sum was payable for the surrendered portion. The dispute reached the apex court through land-reference proceedings and an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which had set aside the High Court's decision maintaining the Land Administrator's award of a nominal RM10 for the alleged surrendered area. The highway concessionaire appealed to the Federal Court.

The central question was whether the State Authority had complied with the requirements of Part Twelve of the National Land Code governing the surrender of land, and whether any non-compliance would render the purported surrender invalid for the purpose of assessing compensation on acquisition. The court also had to consider whether the complaint about the formalisation of the surrender raised a question of law or of fact, and whether there was a right of appeal in light of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, in particular sections 37(2), 40D, and 49(1), and section 68(1)(d) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

Examining the surrender provisions, the court emphasised that section 201(4) of the National Land Code requires the Land Administrator, on approval of a surrender, to revise the rent, notify the proprietor, and make a memorial of the surrender on the register and issue documents of title, and that these steps had not been carried out. It held that the National Land Code conditions for a valid surrender are unambiguous, of general application, and admit of no exception, so that the purported surrender had not been validly formalised. Finding no merit in the appeal, the majority dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of Malaya dissenting. The judgment is a significant statement that a surrender of land not formalised in accordance with Part Twelve of the National Land Code is ineffective for the assessment of acquisition compensation.