SAVANDARAJAN A/L SUBRAMONIAN v 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 2. ) GOH SWEE WAN

Case Significance

A section 29(2) Land Acquisition Act 1960 claim to a share of deposited compensation that failed for want of cogent proof of the claimant's interest, where the land remained registered in the trustee's name and the asserted interest was absent from the Deed of Trust.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision concerns an application under section 29(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to claim a share of compensation money deposited in court following a compulsory acquisition of land. The court began from the settled position that where the Government acquires land belonging to any individual or entity, the landowner is entitled to compensation according to law under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. In this case compensation of RM8,253,000 had been deposited in court in accordance with section 29 of the Act.

The plaintiff applied for leave to obtain 75% of the compensation, amounting to RM1,096,538.46, on the basis that the District Land Administrator of Klang had acquired four of the plaintiff's land lots for the construction of a stretch of the West Coast Expressway. The registered proprietor of the relevant title was the second defendant, described as holding as a trustee. The court dismissed the originating summons on 23 April 2025, and the plaintiff, being dissatisfied, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

In its reasons the court found the plaintiff's evidence, when assessed, to be of less weight than was needed to persuade the court. It regarded as questionable the plaintiff's failure to take reasonable steps to protect his asserted interest over many decades, and it treated as significant the absence of any statement of the plaintiff's interest in the Trust Deed made after the interest was said to have arisen — particularly where the same solicitor had been involved in preparing both the Sale and Purchase Agreements and the Deed of Trust. The court was also influenced by evidence that an official land search confirmed the land remained registered in the name of the second defendant as trustee. On those findings the court concluded that the plaintiff had not established an entitlement to the share of compensation claimed, and the application was dismissed.