The Great Developer Sdn. Bhd.is able to raise expostulation towards the land acquisition as the company is the land owner, which within the significance of individual interested in conformity with reading subdivision of Land Acquisition Act 1960 ( LAA 1960 ) . [ 1 ] However, the evidences that could be raised to dispute had non expressly stated within the commissariats of the Act. Such rights are implied in the words of fundamental law, legislative act and instance jurisprudence.
The acquisition may be objected by the Great Developer Sdn. Bhd. if the Gombak Land Administrator had made aprocedural mistake. A procedural mistake may be made through hold in any procedural measure and non-compliance with S 9 ( 1 ) of LAA 1960.
S 9 ( 1 ) ( B ) of LAA 1960 provided that Land Administrator must do a note of the intended acquisition on the registered papers of rubric of the said land upon the publication of the declaration specified under S8 of the Act. It is preliminary measure before come ining the process of land acquisition.The issue of failure to follow with subdivision 9 had been raised in the instance ofS Kulasingam and Anor v Commissioner of Land, Federal Territory, [ 2 ] where the note is merely made 2 months the publication of the declaration. Although it was held non-compliance with S9, Federal Court still deemed the late notation as valid because it is non compulsory but mere directory. The Great Developer Sdn. Bhd. may raise this land if the notation is tardily more than 2 old ages as the consequence of declaration will sink at that clip. Such hold sums to breach of natural justness, which is besides a land that will be discussed subsequently.
The original owner will be granted right to object if there isholdin any phases of the land acquisition, for illustration, keeping question, doing an award, doing existent payment of compensation. [ 3 ] Prior to the amendment of the Act, continuance of clip which a hold may impact the acquisition, is questionable before the tribunal. InWan Munah bte Wan Embong dan Lain-lain V Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kuala Terengganu, [ 4 ] an acquisition order was quashed after 4 old ages the non-payment of compensation. A clear regulation that 2 old ages is given for the whole proceeding to be completed or else the declaration will run out [ 5 ] , in pursuant to the amendment of S8 ( 4 ) of LAA 1960 in 1982. [ 6 ]
The first measure of the acquisition proceeding is that the Land Administrator shall do full question into the value of land in conformity with S 12 of LAA 1960. A hold in keeping question may impact the payment of compensation to be delayed severally. It was systematically held by the tribunal that the hold in question for undue ground will renders the acquisition to be null even in instances before the amendment took topographic point. [ 7 ] The following phase in land acquisition procedure is to find the sum of compensation or award after the question. Harmonizing toPemungut Hasil Tanah Daerah Barat Daya, Penang v Kam Gin & A ; Ors, [ 8 ] The question is carried out with the intent of make up one’s minding the amout of award and its hold will take to unjustice. The last phase is the payment of compensation by the Land Administrator. S 29 ( 1 ) of LAA 1960 stipulates that the payment of the award will be made every bit shortly as possible once the notice of award in Form H had been served. Delay in doing existent payment of compensation had been recognised inWan Munah’s instance. [ 9 ]
However, S68A of LAA 1960 had besides provided that subsequent disposal of the land acquired through acquisition can non be invalidated. Its cogency is merely questionable if there is failure in following the processs. InPengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kedah v Emico Development Sdn Bhd,[ 10 ] if a notice of question in Form E is non served, the whole land acquisition procedure including the question and award made, can non be held by tribunal as nothing and nothingness under this subdivision. In other words, the hold must be in an of import procedural phases or else the acquisition will still be deemed valid.
If the Gombak Land Administrator had delayed in one of the important phases of the acquisition proceedings, the Great Developer Sdn. Bhd. may has right to annul the acquisition.
Besides, land may be raised by Great Developer Sdn. Bhd. is to reason that the land acquisition is instruggle with jurisprudence. There is a rule of natural justness, Audi alteram partem, which every individual has the right to be heard. However, there is no specific subdivision that shows the individual interested entitled to be heard but S13 of LAA 1960 gave power to Land decision maker to cite informants and analyze them on curse. A land owner can still raise the breach of natural justness as the affair are quasi-judicial and make affects an person. [ 11 ] Such action is recognised by the instance ofOriental Rubber & A ; Oil Palms Sdn Bhd V Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kuantan.[ 12 ]
InPemungut Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya ( Balik Pulau ) , Pulau Pinang V Kam Gin Paik, [ 13 ] the High Court determination do recognized there was breach of natural justness in that instance. However, it is overruled by the Federal Court determination, which ruled that the rules of natural justness shall be observed by the Land Administrator before he make an award for the land in his full question. If he intentionally disregards the stuffs submitted by the landholder for measuring the sum of compensation, he is merely sums to breach of responsibility. This instance is criticized by Ainul as it seems the question is merely for the collector’s satisfaction as to the equal compensation instead than the landholder. [ 14 ]
The Great Developer Sdn. Bhd. could plead the land of breach of natural justness in objecting the land acquisition as the company have no opportunity to be heard in the procedure of question. It is besides can raised that the S 12 of LAA1960 lacked of the elaborate process refering the question and so the subdivision shall be interpreted every bit wide as possible in order to accomplish justness, non like the limited reading inKam Gik Paik’s instance. [ 15 ]
In decision, the Great Developer Sdn. Bhd. may raise the possible evidences above to demo expostulation to the land acquisition. Judicial reappraisal could be filed before the High Court to oversee the public office in doing determination that whether the determination made within the intent of the Act. If the expostulation is successfully raised, the Court will keep the determination.