XXXX v PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR

w-01imncvc-646-10-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 23 June 2025 • W-01(IM)(NCvC)-646-10/2024 • 4 min read

1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Mandamus – whether the Court can compel the Government to transfer the subject land to Semantan Estate based on a 2009 High Court Declaration Order — whether s 29(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 (“GPA”) bars recovery orders against the Government – whether the High Court Declaration Order 2009 is amenable to a subsequent mandamus. Section 29(1)(b) GPA – whether it must be read in tandem with Article 13 of the Federal Constitution — whether the Court can order an assessment of adequate compensation under O 53 r 2(3) Rules of Court 2012 - whether alternatively s 69(4) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 may be invoked. Adequacy of compensation – whether the sum paid was adequate for the purposes of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution having regard to the sum paid by the Government pursuant to the Collector’s Award under the Land Acquisition Enactment — whether Semantan Estate had lost the opportunity to make a land reference — whether Semantan Estate may not seek the return of the subject land but must be confined to monetary relief. Assessment of compensation – whether compensation should be calculated at the current market value or at the market value on the date 3.12.1956 when the Government took possession of the subject land — interest at the rate of 6% per annum under the Land Acquisition Enactment on amount assessed after deducting sums already paid from 3.12.1956 to date of payment — Whether upon payment of the compensation sum as may be assessed the mesne profits will cease to be payable. Section 417 of the National Land Code (“NLC”) – whether the Court can order the transfer of the subject land to Semantan Estate on the basis of the High Court Declaration Order 2009 – whether the High Court Declaration Order 2009 had stopped short of ordering a transfer of the subject land to Semantan Estate — whether the order made for transfer of the subject land under s 417 of NLC should be set aside.

Practice Areas

Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Land Acquisition

Judges (4)

Azimah binti Omar Coram Lee Swee Seng Coram Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh Delivered Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh Delivered

Parties (2)

PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR Respondent Xxxx Appellant

Case Significance

Illustrates that a sealed order recognising a beneficial interest and mesne profits does not itself direct a transfer of land, so a later section 417 transfer order and an associated stay could not stand.

This Court of Appeal supporting judgment forms part of a group of related appeals concerning a company's long-running effort to recover land from the Government, and addresses the interlocutory and stay dimension of that dispute. The appeals turned on whether the courts could compel the Government to transfer the subject land to the company on the basis of a 2009 High Court order, whether section 29(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 barred recovery orders against the Government read with Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, and whether the compensation earlier paid was adequate. In this concurring judgment the court agreed with the reasoning of the presiding member and would dismiss the company's principal mandamus appeal, allow the related appeal by setting aside the High Court order that had compelled the Registrar of Titles to transfer the land back to the company, and dismiss the company's stay appeal. The court added a discrete point about the procedural history: the 2009 order had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and the Government's attempts to obtain leave to appeal to the Federal Court and to review that refusal had both failed. Examining the sealed 2009 order with care, the court noted that it contained no order directing that the land be transferred to the company; that the company had not sought clarification from the judge at the material time; and that the first remedy granted was that the company retained its beneficial interest, while the further order entitled it to mesne profits to be assessed. Because a beneficial interest confers the right to enjoy the benefit of the land but not a registered interest, the court considered that the transfer order later made under section 417 of the National Land Code 1965 could not stand and was rightly set aside. The judgment illustrates the careful reading given to a sealed order in determining the precise relief it confers.

Summary

This is the supporting judgment of Wan Ahmad Farid JCA in the Semantan Estate land dispute, involving three heard-together appeals concerning 263 acres of land in Kuala Lumpur that the government took possession of in 1956. The judge agreed with the main judgment that the High Court erred in ordering the transfer of the land to Semantan Estate under Section 417 of the National Land Code, as the original 2009 declaration order had only declared beneficial interest and not ordered a transfer.

What orders did this supporting judgment agree should be made?

To dismiss the company's principal mandamus appeal, to allow the related appeal by setting aside the order compelling the Registrar of Titles to transfer the land back to the company, and to dismiss the company's stay appeal.

Why could the transfer order not stand?

Because the sealed 2009 order recognised only a beneficial interest and an entitlement to mesne profits and did not direct a transfer; a beneficial interest is not a registered interest, so the later section 417 transfer order was rightly set aside.

Statutes Cited

National Land Code 1965

s 417

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)

[2020] 12 MLJ 237

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (w-01imncvc-646-10-2024)