ISKANDAR WATERFRONT SDN BHD v 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR BAHRU 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor

ja-24ncvc-1150-09-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 25 June 2025 • JA-24NCvC-1150-09/2024 • 25 min read

6 cases cited (0 SG, 6 foreign)

Outcome

Accordingly, I dismissed the Appellant’s application in Enclosure 1 with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondents.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ja-24ncvc-1150-09-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Land Law – Appeals and remedies – Alienation of plots of land to the Appellant with express conditions – Land administrator issued statutory Form 7A and 7B notices to remedy alleged breach of condition – Appeal to set aside statutory forms under section 418 National Land Code – Form 7A notices specified action required for remedying breach – Whether the issuance of the Form 7A Notices were pre-mature in light of the ongoing planning and conversion applications – Whether the Respondents acted irrationally and unreasonably in enforcing section 128 of Act 828 – Whether the Respondents exercised their statutory powers in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

Practice Areas

Land Law

Judges (1)

Wong Mee Ling Delivered

Counsel (8)

Mah WengKwai & Associates Firm Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor Firm Arief Aiman Bin Hamir Hamzah Counsel Respondent Datuk Abd Aziz Bin Engan Counsel Respondent Joseph Khor Counsel Appellant L.M Looi Counsel Appellant Mohammad Azzam Bin Zainal Abidin Counsel Respondent Raymond Mah Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

ISKANDAR WATERFRONT Sdn Bhd Applicant Kerajaan Negeri Johor Respondent PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR BAHRU Respondent

Case Significance

Illustrates that a Land Administrator's Form 7A notices under section 128 of the National Land Code 2020 will not be set aside under section 418 as premature or unreasonable where the proprietor was given ample time to remedy a breach of an express condition and failed to do so.

This High Court decision concerns a landowner's challenge, under section 418 of the National Land Code 2020 (Act 828), to two statutory Form 7A notices issued by the Land Administrator for the District of Johor Bahru requiring the remedy of an alleged breach of an express condition of title. Iskandar Waterfront Sdn Bhd, the registered proprietor of two plots derived from a larger lot originally alienated with express agricultural conditions, appealed to set aside the Form 7A notices issued under section 128 of the Code, contending that they were premature given ongoing planning and land-conversion applications, and that the Land Administrator had acted irrationally, unreasonably, or in bad faith. The original title carried express conditions in Bahasa Malaysia, including "Tanah ini hendaklah ditanam dengan tanaman kelapa sawit" (this land is to be planted with oil palm), restricting the land to agricultural use. The court examined whether the issuance of the notices was premature in light of the pending applications, and whether the enforcement of section 128 was tainted by irrationality or improper purpose. It held that it was not: the notices were neither arbitrary nor issued in bad faith, the proprietor having been given ample time — some fourteen years to comply with the imposed conditions, followed by a further 180 days after the Form 7A notices — yet having failed to take any meaningful step to remedy the breach. The court also declined to consider certain affidavits it found should not bear on the determination. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000.00 payable by the appellant to the respondents. The judgment illustrates the limited scope for judicial intervention in a Land Administrator's statutory enforcement of express conditions under the National Land Code, and the weight given to a long history of non-compliance when a proprietor complains of premature or unreasonable enforcement.

Summary

Iskandar Waterfront appealed against Form 7A notices issued by the Johor Bahru Land Administrator for breach of express conditions on two plots of land requiring oil palm cultivation. Despite the land being intended for mixed development, the appellant had failed for 14 years to apply for conversion of land use. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the respondents acted rationally and gave ample time for compliance, and the appellant's failure to take meaningful steps to remedy the breach was inexcusable.

What did the appellant challenge?

The issuance of two Form 7A notices under section 128 of the National Land Code 2020, seeking to set them aside under section 418 on the grounds that they were premature and that the Land Administrator had acted irrationally, unreasonably, or in bad faith.

Why was the appeal dismissed?

The court found the notices were neither arbitrary nor issued in bad faith: the proprietor had roughly fourteen years to comply with the express conditions and a further 180 days after the notices, yet took no meaningful step to remedy the breach; the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00.