Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
S 5 NLC means all land in the State (including so much of the bed of any river,
and of the foreshore and bed of the sea, as is within the territories of the State or
the limits of territorial waters) other than-
a) alienated land;
b) reserved land;
c) mining land;
d) any land which, under the provisions of any law relating to forests (whether
passed before or after the commencement of this Act) is for the time being
reserved forest;
State authority is defined in S5 as ruler or governor of the state as the case may be
Chong Wooi Leong & ors v Lebby SB
The politician promised tht the appellants would be given a TOL. However,
the politicians breached their promise.
It was held that one who seeks remedy must come with clean hand. in this
case, the appellants were squatters and they should be punished under s425
and the state authority had never consent. The decision was upheld by the
COA as the politician are different from the state authority.
Principle: all promised made in whatever manner by either the district officer,
village headman, elected representative or the like, indicating that the
occupants have a right to occupy or continue to occupy the land would fall
short the requirement of consent from the state authority.
Hamdan Johan & ors v Felcra Bhd & ors and another case
Under the NLC the state authority is defined as the ruler or governor of the
state, as the case may be. It follows that the state authority and the Menteri
Besar are not the same.
Accordingly, in principle, the third defendant (Johor State Government) is
under no obligation to carry out what the Menteri Besar agreed to.
The third defendant and the Menteri Besar are separate legal entities,
although the Menteri Besar formed part of the third defendant
Powers of disposal
S 40 NLC provided that there is and shall be vested solely in the SA the entire
property in –
(1) All State land within the territories of the State
(2) All minerals and rock material within or upon any land in the State
Ways of disposal
S 42(1) provide that the SA have the power under this act
a. alienate the SL in accordance with the provision of s76
(b) to reserve the land and grant leases of reserved land in accordance with
the provision of chapter 1 of part 4
b. to permit of occupation of the SL, reserved land and mining land under
TOL issued in accordance with the provision of chapter 2 of part 4.
c. to permit the extraction and removal or rock material from any land, other
than reserved forest, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 3 of part
4.
d. to permit the use of air space on or above SL or reserved land or reserved
land in accordance with the provision of chapter 4 of part 4
s42(2) provided that the SA shall not
dispose any land for the purpose of mining
permit the extraction or removal of rock material from any land for the
purpose of obtaining metal or mineral
to dispose ant land for the purpose of the removal or forest produce
to alienate the land do as to have effect of less than two fifth of a hectare of
land subject to the category “agriculture” or to any condition requiring its
use for any agricultural purpose being held by more than one person or
body, provided that the SA , may, under exceptional circumstances,
alienate such land to more than one person or body notwithstanding that it
is less than 2/5 of a hectare.
Alienation
Section 5 defines alienation means to dispose of SL in perpetuity or for a term of
years, in consideration for payment of rent and otherwise in accordance with the
provisions of section 76 or when used in relation to the period of time before the
commencement of this act, to dispose of the state land in perpetuity or for a term
of years under a previous land law.
Alienated land means the land (including any parcel of a subdivided building) in
respect of which a registered title for the time being subsists, whether final or
qualified, whether perpetuity or for a term and whether granted by SA under this
act or in exercise of powers conferred by any previous land law but does not
include mining land.
Philip Haolim Jr v the state commissioner, Penang
The appellant had sought a declaration in the High Court that the National
Land Code (Penang and Malacca) Order, 1965 and the State Orders imposing
or revising rent on certain lands were null, void and of no effect and contrary
to the Constitution. Ong Hock Sim J. (as he then was) stated a case for the
opinion of the Federal Court and the Federal Court answered the questions
put in the case and ordered that the motion for the declaration be dismissed.
in effect the Federal Court held that it was competent for the State authority
in Penang to issue the orders under the National Land Code, 1965, in order to
impose or increase rents. The appellants appealed and at the hearing before
the Privy Council it was sought to argue that the orders of the State Authority
operated a compulsory acquisition of property without compensation in
breach of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The question in this appeal is
whether the State Authority of the State of Penang have, as they have by
legislation purported to do, validly subjected the holding to a payment of quit
rent at the rate prescribed
Court held that by section 5 it is provided that any land in respect of which a
registered title for the time being subsists, whether granted by the State
Authority under this Act or in the exercise of powers conferred by any
previous land law, is to be described as "alienated land". Power is given to
the State Authority by sections 101 and 102 to fix rents in respect of lands
alienated before the commencement of the Act and to revise periodically
rents payable in respect of alienated land. Thus so far the effect of the
assimilation of land tenures would have apparently been to subject old fee
simple holdings in Penang, now held under grants first grade, to the power of
the States to extract rents in respect of them
S76 provided that the alienation of State land under this Act shall consist of
disposal by the SA-
(aa) in perpetuity-
Effect of alienation
Tan Chiw Thoo v Tan Kim Kuay
The alienated land ceased to be state land, to alienate it again in favor of a
different person tantamount to a failure to observe the mandatory statutory
provisions of NLC which renders the document of title of the second title
holder void.
Glen Waverley Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor &
Anor
Once a land is alienated, then it can only be reverted to state in accordance
with the law. Deprivation of ownership of land not in accordance with law
in a nullity and void.
Purpose
S 65(2) - purpose other than one prohibited by sub-section (2) of section 42
S 69 provided that TOL may be issued to include the extraction and removal of
any rock material, the license shall be in Form 4B and may be issued for a
maximum term not exceeding 5 years.
Form 4A para 4 provide that:-
The land under license may not be used-
(a) for any purpose other than that stated above;
(b) for the planting of permanent crops;
(c) for the erection of any permanent building or other permanent structure
Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin
PF was the holder of a TOL giving him the right to occupy the land and pluck
coconuts from trees on the land. Defendant was subsequently given a TOL in
respect of the land for the purpose of rearing poultry. This was an appeal
against the judgment of the HC where the PF brought an action against DF
and was awarded $2000 damages.
It was held that the RP was only entitled to a loss income from the coconut
trees as the license was given for the purpose to pluck coconuts only so the
amount of damages were reduced.
Duration
S 67(1) NLC – “expiring not later than the end of the calendar year in which it
commences, and subject to sub-section (3) may be renewed annually”
S 67(3) NLC) – “renew for a term of not more than one calendar year’
PROVISO of s67(3) provide that there shall not be more than three renewals-
except for the approval of the SA)
Proviso of s67(1) provide that TOL for the purpose of public exhibition or
entertainment may be issued for such other term as may be appropriate in the
circumstances
S69(1)(b) issued for maximum term not exceeding five years, or such greater
number of years as may be prescribed
it would be renewed and back-dated. in either case it is unfair and unjust that
the respondent should be deprived of the fruits of her judgment merely
because of the action of others for which she would not be held responsible
Section 68 provided a TOL shall not be capable of assignment; and every such
licence shall, except as provided in S 416, terminate on the death of the person, or
dissolution of the body, for the time being entitled to the benefit thereof
Paruvathy v Krishnan
Gave “equal shares in the land” to two other people. Contravenes S 68 making
it null and void.
Hee Cheng v Krishnan
The plaintiff claimed specific performance or alternatively for damage for a
breach of contract entered into between him and the defendant for the purchase
of a house built upon a piece of state land held under TOL.
It was held that the holder of TOL not allowed to assign, so alleged contract
was in fact attempt to sell and to purchase the defendant’s right under TOL was
void or unlawful.
Narayanan v Kannamah
Appellant’s father executed a gift to transfer house to the respondent.
Appellant continued to occupy. Respondent issued notice to quit.
Even if the respondent's father held TOL on the land, the license was
temporary and not transferable upon the death
S68
Pappo v Veeriah
“a TOL is exactly what the name implies. It is a license to occupy State land and
nothing more... license is personal to the holder; it dies with the holder”
Fatimah v Moideen Kutty
Resp occupied the land which originally belonged to App’s husband who later
died. The Collector of the Land Revenue refused to renew the license. App as
administratix claimed rent in respect from the resp after she stopped paying.
Issue- Whether TOL is able to be passed to descendant after death?
Held: When her husband died, the TOL never formed part of his estate, thus as
administratix she has no standing regards to the land. App cannot say that due to
the resp continuing to pay rent after death of her husband means she was
recognized as the land owner
Mohammed Said v Fatimah
A was the holder of a TOL.
He brought an action for trespass against B when his license had expired.
Held: At the time of action A had no right to the possession of the land (due to
expiry of the license and not renewed) and therefore could not institute an action
for trespass against B
Sales of house built on TOL land
Govindaraju v Krishnan
TOL holder rented out 2 rooms. Later, he terminated the tenancy. Tenants
refused to leave the premises. Tenants argued that the tenancy was void
because he was a mere licensee.
Issue: Whether the letting of the rooms on a tenancy amounted to a transfer
Court held that tenancy did not amount to a transfer of his rights under TOL
Agreement of lease of Klins on TOL land
Tan Bok Seong v Sin Bee Seng & Co (Port Weld) Sdn. Bhd
Defendants agreed to lease kiln to Plaintiff.
Held: A lease of kilns built on TOL land should not be regarded as an
attempt to transfer the company's rights and interests under the TOL to the
plaintiff. The Defendant merely leases the kilns to the plaintiff and not the
TOL.
Application of equitable estoppel against TOL holder
Paruvathy v Krishnan
The principle of equitable estoppel can in a proper case be invoked against
the holder of a TOL
Rights over authorized structure/crops on TOL land
PP v Chin Keow
Pappo v Veeriah
No Right to compensation against a subsequent TOL holder
Teh Bee v K Maruthamuthu
in no circumstances can an occupier of land on TOL acquire a right to be
compensated by a subsequent holder of a TOL
Cancellation of TOL
The TOL can be cancelled under Form 4A para 5
Reservation of land
Lease of reserved land
Nature of rights
S 73 provide that the permits are not capable of assignment
Marble Terrazo Industries Sdn Bhd v Anggaran Enterprise Sdn Bhd
Oral permission by DF2 & D3 was said to be given for PF to extract rock
materials from the said land subject to the certain conditions. However, no
written agreement was signed due to dispute concerning terms to be included
in the contract. As the PF is wary that the DFs will dispose of the said land or
permit other people to enter upon the said land, the PF applied for an interim
injunction and the court granted an interim injunction so as to restrain the DFs
from permitting any person other than the PF or its agents from entering,
working or extracting rock materials from the said land until final disposal of
this suit or further order. The DFs applied for the order dated 8 April 1988 to
be set aside.
DF's application was allowed by the court since after considering the
conditions in the permit in this case, provisions of law, s 73 of the NLC 1965
and s 24 CA 1950 and case authorities, the permit issued to D1 cannot be
transferred and any attempt to transfer its rights thereunder is illegal and the
agreement for that purpose is void
Effect on condition
S75 provide that doing the act that has been authorized by the permit shall not be
taken as breach of contract.
S75G(2) provided that the permit issued may be cancelled by the SA at its
discretion at any time before the date of expiry when there is no breach, shall be
compensated as may be agreed or determined
.
No adverse possession
General
S48 states that no title to SL shall be acquired by possession, unlawful
occupation or occupation under any licence for any period whatsoever.
S425 provides that any person without lawful authority occupies, erect any
building on SL, reserved land or mining land shall be guilty of an offence and
liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding Rm 500000 or imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 5 years or both
S341 provided that thereis no time limit to bring action for the recovery of
property.
Government of the state of Negeri Sembilan & Anor v Yap Chong Lan
The collector had no power to bind the state authority in making the
commitment which had been made. It was held that the state authority
which had power to alienate land. Therefore he took the view that the
collector had no authority to give the assurance that was given.
Section 48 prescribed that no title to state land shall be acquired by
possession, unlawful occupation or occupation under any license for any
period whatsoever.
Section 78(3) provided that the alienation of the state land shall take effect
on the registration of a register document of title.
As the Lesco development had been alienated the land, they were the
rightfully entitled to the ownership and consequential rights
Sidek bin Haji Muhhamad & ors v Gov of the state of Perak
The appellants came to Perak and opened up a jungle area in Kg Gajah.
The other settlers also settled in that area
The government resettled some settlors to the land that appellants were
occupying.
The appellants were given the notice to vacate the land.
The appellant claimed that they were entitled in law and equity to be in
possession of the land that they pioneered and occupied
The court held that the appellants had no cause of action against
respondents as they were squatters who has no right at all in law and
equity.
Principle: the title of the state land can only be acquired by way of
alienation and no other ways and such alienation must be affected in
accordance with the provisions laid down in relevant statues only. .
Tetuan Tokoyaki Property Sdn. Bhd. v Sam Kok Sang
The plaintiff applied to recover their land and possession which was
occupied by the 1st and 2nd defendant and other occupiers without tiher
permission.
The plaintiffs had obtained judgment against the 2nd and 3rd defendant by
default as they were absent.
The 1st defendant contended that he had right to remain on the Lot as the
owner as he had applied for a housing lot and was directed to complete the
form only in 1989, he has been paying assessment for his house to Majlis
Perbandaran Taiping since 1984 and was surprised when he was informed
that the plaintiff have been given title to the said lot in 1999. He also
contented he was provided with the supply of water, electricity and litter
bins
Issues: whether the 1st defendant has a right in law and in equity to remain
on the lot
Held: merely submitting or applying to the SA for a piece of land which
the first defendant was occupying does not either impliedly or expressly
grant a license, consent or permission from the SA for the 1 st defendant to
live or to continue to live on the said lot
An illegal squatter has no right in law or equity to enable him to claim a
right to live on the lot as the plaintiffs were the register proprietor and has
every right to evict the defendants by summary procedure. Merely erecting
buildings unlawfully on plaintiffs’ land and occupying it is not sufficient
to create any right or equity against the rightful owner who is protected by
the title.
Reversion
General
S46 provided the circumstance of the reversion of the land
- Alienated land will revert to the SA under several circumstances
a) Upon the expiry of the term- s46(1)(a)
b) Upon the publication in the Gazette of forfeiture for non-payment of
rent or breach of condition- s46(1)(b)
c) Death of a proprietor without successors, and the abandonment of title
by proprietors; and – s46(1)(c)
d) Upon the surrender of land by the proprietor s46(1)(d)
Koperasi Kasuma (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri
Selangor
The propriety interest is reverted back together with the land to the SA
S351(1) provide that when the land is reverted back to the SA when the SA are
satisfied that the proprietor of the alienated land had died and are satisfied that
there is no successors, may make ot cause to be made an endorsement to that
effect on the RDT to the land
S352(1) provides that when the SA are satisfied that the proprietor of the
alienated land held under land officer title is not in effective occupation of the
land and has for the past 7 years, done no act or thing evidencing his title, the SA
shall make endorsement on the RDT to the land to effect that the proprietor
appears to have abandon his title.
S49 provided that when the shoreline or bed of river encroached, the area affected
by the encroachment shall cease to form part of the land and shall become state
land but when there is retreat of the shoreline or bed of any river, the boundaries
if the alienated land shall not be affected by the retreat.
Effect of reversion
S47
(1) Vest in SA all buildings of the land (by whomsoever erected) other than any of
temporary construction and capable of removal
(2) No compensation shall be payable by SA in respect of any building vesting in it
Surrender of title
S195 (1) provide that the proprietor of the alienated land may with the approval of
the State Director or Land administrator surrender the land to the SA the whole or
part thereof.
S195(2) provide that the approval required by (1) shall be given
- By state director in case of land held under Registry Title or the form of
qualified title corresponding to Registry title.
- By land administrator in case where land held under Land Office title or in
a form of qualified title corresponding to Land Office title.
S196 provide the condition for approval of surrender.
- no item of land revenue is outstanding
- the land will not cause or create liabilities to the SA
- land is not under attachment of court
- obtained consent from the person/ body in s198(2)
Surrender the land as a whole
s197(1) application for approval by proprietor wishing to surrender the land shall
be made in writing to LA in Form 12A and shall be accompanied by
- fees prescribed
- written consent to the making thereof as are required under s196(1)(c)
- issue of document of title to the land unless the proprietor alleges that it is
impossible to produce
s197(2) when the proprietor is unable to produce the IDT because it is in the hand
of the chargee or lien-holder, the application shall include instead of the copy of
request by the proprietor, served on the chargee/lien-holder for the production of
document at the land office within 14 days
s197(3) upon the receipt of application, LA shall endorse or cause to be endorse a
note on the register document of title to the land.
S198(1) where any application under s197(1) relates to land the surrender requires
the approval of state director, the LA shall refer the application to him together
with a statement whether any item of land revenue is then outstanding in respect
the land.
S198 (2) if the condition under s196(1) are satisfied, SA shall approve the
surrender.
S198(3) in any other case, the LA or as the case may be, State Director shall reject
the application.
S198(4) on approving or being informed by State Director that he has approved
the surrender, the LA shall
- notify the proprietor
- make or cause to be made a memorial of surrender on the RDT
S198(5) on rejecting or being informed by State Director that he had rejected, the
application, the LA shall
- Notify the proprietor
- Cancel or cause to be cancelled, the note endorsed on the RDT pursuant
to s197(3)
S199(1) provide that upon the making of memorial pursuant to s198(4), the land
shall revert to and vest in the SA as State Land and the provision of s131 shall
apply as if the land has reverted pursuant to forfeiture.
S199(2) the IDT of the land reverted shall be destroyed and accordingly if in a
case falling within s197(2) that the document is not produced pursuant to the
request therein referred to, its production shall be demanded under s15
S202(4) the part retained by the proprietor is held under the qualified title, the
registrar or LA shall correct the boundaries shown on the RDT and IDT(if it exist
in the proprietor’s hand)
Surrender and re-alienation
S203(1) the LA under special circumstances may approve the surrender of any 2
or more contiguous lots owned by the same proprietor under Land Office Title on
the terms that the land comprised therein be immediately re-alienated to the
proprietor in different units, each less than 4 hectares and each under the form of
qualified title corresponding to Land Office Title
S203(2)- the said circumstances are;
- Lot is question are all situated in the same mukim, town or village
- No dissimilarity exists between any of the lots as respects the period for
which they are held, the rates at which rent is payable, or the category of
land use, condition and restriction in interest to which they are subjected
- The combined area of lots exceeds 4 hectares
- None of the lot is subject to any registered interest or tenancy exempt from
registration protected by endorsement on the RDT
S203(3)-Any proprietor who wishes to apply shall apply in Form 12c and s197-
s199 shall apply to the application subject to modifications specified in
subsection(4) and to such other modification as may be necessary.
S203(4) the modifications are:
- Matters to be sent with application shall include plan showing the details
of the existing lots and the proposed new units, together with such number
of copies thereof as may be prescribed or in the absence of prescription,
the LA may require
- LA shall not approve the application unless he is satisfied not only
conditions in s203(1), (2)(b) and (d) and s196(3) are fulfilled but also
circumstances stated in subsection (2) and the area of each of the proposed
new units is less than 4 hectares.
S204(1)- when the application of surrender has been approved in the
circumstances under s203, document of qualified title in the form corresponding
to land office title shall be registered in respect of each of the proposed new unit
immediately after making of the memorial of the surrender required under
s198(4).
S204(2)- the document shall state that it relates to land re-alienated on surrender
and shall specify the date on which the land was first alienated, the title number(s)
originally allotted and (if different), the title number(s) uner which it was held
immediately before the surrender took effect.
S204(3) the rent payable in respect of any land re-alienanted on surrender shall be
calculated by reference to the rate at which rent was formerly payable in respect
thereof and the area thereof as estimated for the purpose of the application for
surrender.
Forfeiture
General
It is a power of the SA to take back alienated land form the registered proprietor
due to either the non-payment of rent or breach of condition.
Grounds of forfeiture
There are 2 grounds which land may be forfeited
(1) s100 non payment of rent
(2) s127(1) breach of condition
Forfeiture for non-payment
(d) Time of Payment of Rent
s94(1)- the rent is due the beginning of the calendar year
s94(2)- the rent payable shall fall due on the first day of the of that year and if not
sooner paid shall be treated as becoming arrear on the first day of June.
(e) Time When Rent in Arrear
S94(2)- the rent payable shall fall due on the first day of the of that year and if
not sooner paid shall be treated as becoming arrear on the first day of June.
(f) Actions to Be Taken By SA For Rent in Arrear
S97(1) provided when the rent in arrear the LA will serve notice of demand in
Form 6A to the registered proprietor.
S97(2)- a note of service shall be endorse, by or at the instance of the LA, on the
RDT tot eh land which the notice related.
Pow Hing & Anor v Registrar of Titles, Malacca
Endorsement of the note of service of the notice on the RDT is a
mandatory requirement.
Failure to do so renders the forfeiture invalid.
(g) Who May Pay
S98(1) provide the parties that may pay for the rent
- Person/body having the registered interest affecting the land
- Person/body having lien over the land
- Person/body in occupation under any tenancy
- Person/body having a claim of caveat
S98(2) sum paid by chargee shall be added to an deemed for all purpose to form
part of the first payment
S98(3)(b) if the tenant had paid for the rent, may recover the payment by
deduction of rental.
S98(3)(a) the parties in (1) may recover the sum from the proprietor by civil
action.
(h) Effect of Payment of Rent
S99- if the sum demanded by notice under s97 is tendered to LA within time
specified , the notice shall cease to have effect, and the LA shall cancel or cause
to be cancelled, the note endorsed pursuant to (2) on the RDT to the land to
which the notice related..
(i) Effect of Non Payment
S93 the rent payable in respect of any alienated land shall be a debt due to SA
S100 if by the end of the period, the whole of the sum had not been tendered to
him, he shall thereupon by order declare the land forfeit to the SA.
(i) No extension of time period specified in Form 6A
- Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota Tinggi v UMBC
If the whole sum demanded is not paid by the end of the period pf
notice, the LA will make an order of forfeiture.
(ii) Constitutionality of s100
- East Union (Malaya) Sdn Bhd V Govt of State Of Johore & Govt Of
Malaysia
FACTS: Applicant company owned a large rubber estate and had
failed to pay quit rent to the SA within the specified time
Collector later issued a notice of forfeiture
Appellant argued that S 100 is ultra vires to ART 76(4) because
Federal Consti empowers the federal govt to govern all law
regarding land to ensure a standard form. Art 76(4) doesn’t include
“land revenue” (the reason why his land was forfeited) so how can
the fed govt enact a provision regarding the land revenue n S 100
of NLC?
HELD: “Land tenure” in art 76(4) is wide enough to include
collection of revenue which is why appellant’s argument is
rejected.
Art 76(4) authorizes Parliament to legislate on land matters for the
purpose only of ensuring uniformity of law and policy.
(iii) An order under s100
- KHOO CHENG & ORS V PENTADBIR TANAH MUAR
The plaintiff is the administrators of the estate of Gan Cheng Leong,
deceased,
Plaintiff made an application to set aside the order of the defendant
forfeiting the deceased's land for non-payment of quit rent pursuant to s97
and s100.
It was adduced that the defendant, upon the cognizance that quit rent
amounting to RM571 had remained in arrears in respect of the said land,
issued a notice in Form 6A demanding payment of the same.
Form 6A notice, however, was not issued to any administrator or beneficiary
of the estate of the deceased but to an outsider by the name of Lim Pong
Geok, and further, was addressed to 45-G, Jalan Salleh, Muar and not to the
deceased's last known address.
It is evident that the Land Administrator, after having declared the said land
forfeit to the State Authority and having published in the Gazette the notice
of forfeiture in Form 8A, LA did not register any memorial thereof on the
register document of title as mandated by s. 433 NLC.
The plaintiffs argued that the forfeiture was invalid and null and void, as
service of the Form 6A notice was bad in law and contravened s. 97(1) NLC.
Court held allowed the application and set aside the forfeiture as the
forfeiture of land for non-payment of rent must comply with the mandatory
requirements in the NLC.
-
(j) Procedure for forfeiture for non-payment of rent S 97-100
1) LA serves notice of demand in Form 6A
2) LA endorses a note of service in Form 6A on the RDT
3) LA serves a copy of Form 6A on persons and bodies having interest in the land
4) If sum demanded is not paid, order for forfeiture is made under S 100
5) Notification of forfeiture in Form 8A is published in the Gazette
fine of not less than RM500 and in case of continuing breach, a further
fine of not less than RM100 for each day which the breach continues.
- S127(1B) where the fine is paid upon an order, no action shall be taken
under 128 or s129 in respect of breach.
- S127(1C)- if breach continues, LA may serve notice in Form 7F to
informing the proprietor the intention to take action under s128 and s129
upon the expiry of a period of 6 months from the date of service of notice.
(ii) Securing remedy of breach of condition
- 128(1) where the alienated land is liable under s127 to forfeiture to the SA
and it appear that the LA that it is capable of being remedied by the
proprietor within a reasonable time.
- The land administrator shall serve the proprietor a notice in Form 7A
specifying action required to be taken to remedy the breach and calling
proprietor to take action within the time specified.
- S127(4)provide that every breach of condition shall be taken to be capable
of being remedied and the action required by remedying any breach shall
be taken consist in case of positive condition of the doing of every act or
thing the omission to do which constituted or formed part of the breach or
in case of negative condition, of the doing of all such acts or thing as are
necessary to put the land into the tate in which it would be if breach had
not occurred.
- S128(2)- upon the service or any notice under s128(1), LA shall endorse
or cause to be endorse on RDT to the land in question a note to the effect
that the land is subject to action for breach of condition.
- S128(3)- if the notice under s128(1) is complied with, the note endorsd
under s128(2) shall be cancelled but if the notice is not compiled then the
LA shall take action in accordance with the provisions of s129.
(d) Circumstances Which Land Would Cease to Be Liable to Forfeiture
S127(3)- the forfeiture shall cease to be liable if the breach has been remedied or
in case of a condition subject to fixed term, no action has been taken with respect
of breach under s128 and s129 before the expiry of a period of 12 years
beginning with the date on which the breach arose.
Annulment of forfeiture
S133(1)- any person who was the proprietor of the alienated land immediately
before the forfeiture may at any time apply to the SA for the annulment of the
forfeiture
S133(2) the SA may in its absolute discretion to allow or refuse any petition and
if allow the petition, may do so conditionally upon the payment by petitioner
- If forfeiture was for non-payment of rent, of such penalty, not exceeding 6
times the sum which he is required to pay by notice of demand served on
him under s97
- If the forfeiture was for breach of condition, of such amount the SA may
determine in respect of the expenses occasioned.
United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd & Anor v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kota
Tinggi
The power to grant relief against forfeiture is vested in the State Authority in
its absolute discretion and not in the courts
Effect of forfeiture
S 131 -Upon the taking effect in relation to any land of any forfeiture under this
Act
a. the land shall revert to, and vest in, the State Authority as State land , freed and
discharged from all titles and interests subsisting or capable of arising immediately
before the forfeiture took effect;
b. there shall also vest in the State Authority , to the extent specified in section 47 and
without payment of compensation, any buildings then existing on the land ; and
c. any item of land revenue then due to the State Authority in respect of the land shall
be extinguished
Bee Lee Liang v Chew Sah Suak & Anor
The effect of forfeiture on title is to cause the land to become State land and
able to be alienated.
of Part Seven unless, in the opinion of the court, the irregularity was of a
significant nature.
(a) 3 months period (s418(1))
Khoo Cheng v Pentadbir Tanah Muar
Any person or body aggrieved by any decision. .. may at any time within
the period of 3 months beginning with the date on which it was communi-
cated to him, appeal therefrom to the Court.
(b) Wrongdoing of the officer appointed by SA
Bagan Serai Housing Estate Sdn. Bhd. v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Daerah
Seberang Perai Tengah & Anor
This was an appeal against the decision of the High Court in granting the plaintiff
a declaration that the forfeiture of the plaintiff's lands was invalid and that the
plaintiff was entitled to claim compensation from the state authority of Penang
under s. 134(4)
plaintiff was the registered proprietor of a piece of land ('the said land') held
under the interim register.
first defendant issued a notice in Form 6A to the plaintiff demanding payment of
RM126,853.17 as quit rent and arrears due in respect of the said land
Form 6A could not be served by the first defendant because the plaintiff had
changed its address. But the Penolong Pentadbir Tanah Daerah caused the
service of a notice in Form 6A by substituted service pursuant to s. 432(1) of the
NLC
The penolong pentadbir then issued a notice in Form 8A stating that the said
land had been forfeited to the State Authority.
The said Form 8A was issued before the endorsement of the note of the
substituted service of Form 6A on the interim register of the said land
plaintiff contended that the entire forfeiture proceedings were wrong, being
contrary to the provisions of the NLC
the court allowed the appeal.