1. ) GOVINDARAJ A/L G. NARAYANASAMY 2. ) CHELAIDHARAI A/L KALIMUTHU 3. ) N. THARUMARAJAH A/L G. NARAYANASAMY 4. ) MAHESWARI A/P N. PONNUSAMY 5. ) KRISHNAN A/L NARAYANASAMY 6. ) ALI KUTY BIN A. KADAR 7. ) RAMESH A/L VATHIAH 8. ) PRAKASH A/L NADARAJAN 9. ) RAJASEGAR A/L SUBRAMANIAM v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak

Case Significance

Illustrates the strict three-month limitation for judicial review under Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012, and the principle that a later notice merely extending time does not restart the limitation period running from the original decision.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for leave to apply for judicial review, brought by a group of residents of a settlement who sought to challenge a decision that they were occupying Government land without the permission of the State Authority. The applicants sought certiorari to quash the decision alleging unlawful occupation, mandamus to maintain their present plots, and prohibition to prevent the authorities from requiring them to vacate the settlement and demolish the existing structures. The Land Administrator had issued a first notice in September 2024 informing the residents that they had committed an offence under section 425 of the National Land Code 1965, exposing them to a fine or imprisonment unless they vacated or demolished the structures within sixty days, and a second notice in October 2024 giving them until January 2025 to vacate. The application for leave was filed on 9 January 2025, and the Attorney General objected that it was out of time. The court, per the High Court at Shah Alam, upheld the objection and dismissed the application. It applied Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012, which requires an application for judicial review to be made promptly and within three months from the date when the grounds of the application first arose, and the settled Federal Court authority that the court has no jurisdiction to hear an application filed outside that time frame, irrespective of its merits. Rejecting the applicants' argument that the two notices were different, the court held that both conveyed the same decision, namely that the residents were in occupation without the permission of the State Authority and should vacate, and that the second notice merely extended the time to vacate. The applicants' own narrative showed that the status of their occupation was in issue even before the notices were issued, so that time ran from the earlier decision and the application was out of time. The judgment is a clear illustration of the strict three-month limitation for judicial review and of the principle that a later notice extending time does not restart the limitation period.