prsentation land

8/13/2019 Prsentation Land

1/8

Kabra Holdings Sdn Bhd vAhmad bin Shahlan Ors

Persons Unknown

Lim Xin Yi Lim Sze Han Lim Yew Yi


2/8


3/8

1. D prayed that the execution of the said order of possession bestayed onthe ground that 104 other occupants sought a declaration in the

Shah Alam court that the alienation of the disputed land by the 3defendants in that action namely the (Menteri Besar of Selangor,Executive Council of Selangorand the plaintiff) was unreasonable and therefore invalid.

He claimed that if the claim in the Shah Alam Court case shouldsucceed then the claim of the P in the present action and thepossession order issued by this court on 2 May 1989 would be

extinguished.

D was not disputing that the plaintiff was the registered owner of theland in dispute but said that there was a dispute as to how the Psname came on the register .

2.Besides, the D had been staying on the said land pursuant to anoral agreement given by the Menteri Besar of Selangor since 1969and the present Menteri Besar of Selangor confirmed the previousMenteri Besars oral agreement made to the defendants in January1989.


4/8

3. At the time when the land was alienated to the P, it had nofinancial ability(RM2 paid up company) to develop the disputed

land. Besides, when the plaintiff obtained the approval letter todevelop the disputed land into a housing estate from the PejabatTanah, Ulu Langat on 10 August 1988 it did not have a housingdevelopers licence .

5. D also claimed that P had charged the land to MBF Finance Bhd.in respect of loans given to third party and thus P had no locusstandi in this action.

4. D complaint that even though the P was Kabra Holdings Sdn.Bhd. the

applicant for the order of possession was KAB Sdn. Bhd .


5/8

The defendants can only have right to occupy the disputed land by way ofthe NLC .

- ss.48 and 341 of the NLC

So, who actually can properly alienate lands to any person or corporation?

- Only the state authority as defined in s. 5 of the said Code

- Yet, certain mandatory steps have to be taken to have a right to occupyany State land.

Why whatever promise made by the Menteri Besar cannot in law and inequity be pleaded against the state authority?

- No provision in NLC

1. Whether the promise given by the Menteri Besar of Selangor isbinding?

*In Lesco Dvpt. Corp. Sdn. Bhd. v. Yap Chong Lan & Ors An equity against the state authority cannot be sustained.

WHY?

it is wrong to introduce into public administrative law concepts such equitable estoppelwhich are essentially aids to the doing of justice in private law.


6/8

- The discretion to alienate land lies completely with the state authority and it is for them toimpose any condition in alienating the land which condition would be endorsed on thegrant.

Here, there are no conditions in the grant that the alienation of the disputed land to theplaintiff requiring the plaintiff to be financially sound to develop the land and that it mustbe in possession of a developers licence. There is nothing to stop the state authority to

alienate the said land to the plaintiff.

2. Whether the alienation of the disputed land was illegal due to want offinancial capacity and the fact that plaintiff didnt obtain developerslicense ?

Whatever decision that would be made by the Shah Alam High Court would notrender decision nugatory because both court have concurrent jurisdiction .

There is no statutory or inherent power for the court to stay the execution of theorder.

The decision only binds the defendants in the present case

The matter can only be dissolved by the Supreme Court.

3 . Whether the pending suit instituted in the Shah Alam High Court has to beconsidered in dealing with the execution of the order of possession grantedto the plaintiff?


7/8

- It is no concern of the defendant.

- The matter is between the state authority and the plaintiff and should the plaintiffbreach any of the conditions of the alienation of the land it is answerable to the stateauthority.

- Whether there is a breach does not in any way affect the status of the defendants asillegal squatters of the disputed land.

5. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to maintain the action aftercharging the disputed land to a finance company and allowing it to bedeveloped?

- P had applied to regularise the mistake and it was allowed by the Senior Assistant

Registrar of this Court (the SAR) - the error was in the nature of a misnomer and could not have misled the defendants

4. Whether the irregularity of the name (Kabra Holdings Sdn. Bhd. or KABSdn. Bhd was fatal to Ps a ction?


8/8

1. It seems unequitable for not giving effect to the promise made.

- it is natural for ordinary citizens to attach certain degree offormality towards the promise made by figures such as MenteriBesar.

- s13 of NLC only provides delegation of SAs to State Director,Registrar / Land Administrator.

2. Promissory Estoppel is under development in the scope of Public

Administrative Law.- The courts are required examine whether the injustice done to an

individual outweighs the disadvantages to public interest.

Opinion

prsentation land

Documents