DANIEL ONG BENG CHONG v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Manjung (AA-24NCvC-231-05/2024)

DANIEL ONG BENG CHONG (NRIC NO.: 740423-01-5735) 12/03/2026 11:31:15

CONNIE ONG MEI LING (NRIC NO.: 751104-08-6468) ... PLAINTIFFS 35

1.

2.

3.

KERAJAAN NEGERI PERAK ... DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 45 Introduction [1]. This case raises a question of considerable legal and constitutional significance, whether the plaintiffs’ sixteen (16) parcels of land situated in Mukim Sitiawan, District of Manjung, Perak, are part of the Malay Reservation declared under 50 Gazette Notification No. 488 dated 17 January 1930 pursuant to the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1913. The determination of that question turns upon both the sufficiency of evidence linking the plaintiffs’ specific lots to the 1930 Gazette and compliance with the mandatory statutory steps under the later Enakmen Rizab 55 Melayu 1933, which governs the legal effect of such reservations. [2]. The plaintiffs, Daniel Ong Beng Chong and his sister, Connie Ong Mei Ling, are non-Malay registered proprietors who purchased the said lands in 2011 and 2012, respectively, 60 through valid sale transactions. Their titles were issued by the Manjung Land Office and bore no memorial or restriction endorsement of any kind. Eleven years later, they were informed by the authorities that their lands had been gazetted as a Malay Reservation, a revelation that gave rise to this suit. 65 [3]. The plaintiffs seek declarations that the purported reservation is unconstitutional, void, and ultra vires Article 89(4) of the Federal Constitution and section 6(vi) of the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933. The defendants resist the claim, contending that the lands had been a Malay Reservation 70 since 1930 under the earlier Enactment Rezab Melayu 1913, and that the plaintiffs’ titles are subject to that pre-existing status. Background Facts [4]. The plaintiffs are registered proprietors of sixteen (16) parcels 75 of land in Mukim Sitiawan. The first plaintiff purchased six (6) plots between late 2011 and early 2012, namely HSD 34831 to HSD 34836 (PT 7829 to PT 7834), while the second plaintiff purchased ten (10) adjoining plots under titles HSD 34819 to HSD 34825 and HSD 34837 to HSD 34839 (PT 7817 to PT 80 7823 and 7835 to 7837). All the plots were duly registered on 12 January 2012. The issue documents of title bore no memorial or endorsement denoting any restriction or notation under the “Sekatan Kepentingan” column. [5]. In 2023, when the first plaintiff intended to sell one parcel, he 85 came across press reports concerning disputes over several lands in Manjung that were allegedly part of a Malay Reservation. The first plaintiff instructed his solicitors to make an inquiry into the matter. Upon inquiry, the 2nd defendant issued letters dated 18 August 2023 and 2 January 2024, 90 informing both plaintiffs that their lands were gazetted as a Malay Reservation on 24 August 2015. The plaintiffs were shocked and surprised by the apparent retrospective imposition of restriction and, as such, filed this originating summons to challenge the gazettement. 95 [6]. The defendants and related authorities later asserted that the 2015 reference was erroneous and that the lands were, in fact, included in the Sitiawan Malay Reservation, as declared long ago by Gazette Notification No. 488 of 17 January 1930 under the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1913. On the court’s direction, an 100 additional affidavit was filed for the defendants by the director of the 2nd defendant on 12 November 2025, who acknowledged that the earlier exhibit of the Gazette was illegible and difficult to read, then exhibited a clearer copy obtained from the Library of the Attorney-General’s Chambers on 10 November 2025. 105 The defendants further produced a letter from JUPEM Perak confirming, in general terms, that the plaintiffs’ lots fall within the boundary of the Sitiawan Malay Reservation. [7]. The plaintiffs maintained that the Gazette is illegible, makes no specific reference to their titles, and has never been reflected 110 in the land register. They contend that the purported reservation was either newly imposed in 2015, which would be contrary to Article 89(4) of the Federal Constitution, or, if the defendants seek to rely on a 1930 declaration, that declaration is invalid due to non-compliance with section 6(vi) of the 115 Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933. [8]. The Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1913 was repealed with effect from 15 December 1933 and replaced by the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933. Undisputed facts 120 [9]. The following are the undisputed facts in this case, arranged in chronological order: a) 21 November 1997: The subject lands were first alienated “Tarikh mula-mula diberi milik” by the State Authority. 125 b) 29 December 2011: The 1st plaintiff purchased six (6) plots of land known as PT 7829 to PT 7834, Mukim Sitiawan. c) Around 2011: The 2nd plaintiff purchased ten (10) plots of land known as PT 7817 to PT 7823 and PT 7835 to PT 130 7837, Mukim Sitiawan. d) 12 January 2012: The plaintiffs were officially registered as the legal proprietors of their respective lands. At this time, there were no endorsements or memorials on the titles indicating the lands were "Malay Reserve." 135 e) 18 August 2023: The 2nd defendant issued an official letter stating that the plaintiffs' lands were declared as Malay Reserve Land on 24 August 2015. f) 2 January 2024: The 2nd defendant issued another official letter to the 2nd plaintiff, again confirming the 140 Malay Reserve declaration date as 24 August 2015. g) 24 May 2024: The plaintiffs filed this Originating Summons challenging the Malay Reserve status. h) 9 September 2024: The defendants filed an Affidavit of Correction in Encl. 8, admitting they issued the 2023 and 145 2024 letters but asserting that the "24.8.2015" date was a clerical error. Note on the 1930 Gazette: While the existence of the 1930 Gazette is undisputed, its applicability to these specific plots is the central point of contention in this litigation. 150 Issues for Determination [10]. The court has identified the following issues for determination: a) whether the sixteen [16] parcels of land held by the plaintiffs were lawfully declared as Malay Reservation land pursuant to Gazette Notification No. 488 dated 17 155 January 1930 under the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1913. b) whether the statutory requirements under section 6 of the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933 (Perak) were duly complied with to give legal effect to the alleged reservation. 160 c) whether the plaintiffs’ registered titles in 2012 are protected by the principle of indefeasibility under section 340 of the National Land Code 1965; and d) whether the subsequent gazettement or reference to the land as Malay Reservation in 2015 contravenes Article 165 89(4) of the Federal Constitution. Findings of the Court Issue 1: Whether the Plaintiffs’ lands were lawfully declared as Malay Reservation land in 1930 170 [11]. The defendants rely principally on Gazette Notification No. 488 dated 17 January 1930, issued under the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1913. The Director of Lands and Mines Perak (Dato’ Mohamad Fariz bin Mohamad Hanip) exhibited a copy of the said Gazette in his affidavit, later filing an additional affidavit on 175 12.11.2025, with a clearer copy obtained from the Library of the Attorney General’s Chambers. It is the defendant’s submission based on an alleged clearer copy, which they maintained that the Gazette had declared Mukim Sitiawan as a Malay Reservation and that the plaintiffs’ land falls within it. 180 [12]. The plaintiffs challenge the probative value of the said Gazette, asserting that it neither identifies the specific lots in question nor correlates with their titles. The court has carefully examined the documentary evidence. The Gazette in question is a general territorial declaration, typical of early 20th century 185 notifications issued under the 1913 Enactment. However, the defendants produced no accompanying plan or boundary map linking the declared reservation to the plaintiffs’ present-day lots. There is also no continuous documentary record tracing the land from the 1930 declaration to the current titles, namely 190 HSD 34819 to HSD 34839. [13]. Insofar as the JUPEM letter exhibited by the defendants is concerned, it only provides a generalised confirmation that the lands fall “within the Sitiawan Malay Reservation boundary.” However, it fails to identify any lot number, title reference, or 195 survey verification. The letter’s confirmation is unsupported by reference to cadastral documents or ‘Borang A’ records. As such, it cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of the alleged reservation and its legal effect. [14]. For all intents and purposes, JUPEM is not the authority 200 empowered to declare or designate land as Malay Reservation Land. As such, any confirmation letter issued by JUPEM on that matter has no legal effect and is irrelevant to determining the land’s reservation status. [15]. The court therefore accepts the plaintiff’s submission that while 205 the Gazette Notification No. 488 may exist historically, it has not been proven with sufficient evidence that the Gazette covers the specific lands presently registered under the plaintiffs’ names. In the absence of precise identification and linkage, the Gazette remains of general character and does not 210 establish a valid reservation over these lots. [16]. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any precise identification or documentary linkage between the 1930 Gazette and the plaintiffs’ present-day lots, this court must give effect to the current documents of title. The registered titles 215 disclose that the subject lands were first alienated on 21 November 1997, and there is nothing on the face of the register to indicate that they were ever endorsed as Malay Reservation land. On the contrary, the documentary record establishes that the lands were alienated as land held under private ownership 220 and until they are displaced by cogent evidence to the contrary, the current register remains conclusive. Issue 2: Whether the mandatory steps under Section 6 of the 225 Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933 were complied with. [17]. Even if one assumes for the purpose that the 1930 Gazette did purport to reserve the area, the court must still consider whether the subsequent statutory requirements under section 6(1)–(3) of the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933 were fulfilled. 230 Section 6 provides a three-step process: a) The publication in the Gazette of the declaration. b) The District Collector must issue a requisition in “Borang A”, listing all alienated lands affected and notifying the Registrar. 235 c) The Registrar must enter a memorial on each title, noting the reservation. [18]. The purpose of these provisions, is explained in Bebe Sakimah Mohd Asrof v. Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak 240 [2021] 7 MLJ 701; [2020] 10 CLJ 413; [2021] 1 AMR 19; [2021] 1 MLRH 700, and it is to ensure that reservations under the 1933 Enactment are not only declared but also recorded and notified to proprietors through the register of titles. The High Court in Bebe Sakimah (supra) held that these steps are 245 mandatory and sequential, and failure to comply renders the purported reservation legally ineffective. [19]. In the present case, the defendants’ evidence shows at the most only the first step of the 1930 Gazette publication. There is no evidence of any “Borang A” requisition by the District 250 Collector of Manjung, nor any record of submission to the Registrar of Titles. The absence of these documents is fatal, for they form the connection between a general gazettement and the specific imposition of restrictions on identified alienated lands. 255 [20]. More importantly, no memorial or endorsement was ever entered on the plaintiffs’ titles. The issue documents of title exhibited in Enclosure 2, show a clean register, devoid of any notation under the “Sekatan Kepentingan” column. Under the Torrens system, the register is the “mirror” of ownership. If no 260 restriction appears, none can be presumed. [21]. The decision in Nor Azhar bin Zainal v Pentadbir Tanah Larut [2015] MLJU 620; [2016] 1 LNS 1450, reinforces this position. In that case, His Lordship Choo Kah Sing, in the High Court held that a claim that land forms part of a Malay 265 Reservation cannot succeed in the absence of an endorsement on the title, even where reliance is placed on an old Gazette, as a Gazette by itself does not alter the legal status of the land until it is properly recorded in the land register. The case affirms that the legal status of land as a Malay Reservation cannot rest 270 solely on a general or historical Gazette entry without proper linkage to the land register. The court emphasised that the status of the land must be supported by clear and complete evidence connecting the Gazette declaration to the particular land, and where the land register does not reflect such status, 275 the evidential burden lies on the party asserting it. In Nor Azhar’s case, the absence of an endorsement on the new title was treated as a material evidential gap. His Lordship further observed that the relevant authority was required to explain why the Registrar had failed to record the Malay Reservation 280 status, and in the absence of such explanation, the court drew an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. His Lordship observed as follows: “[37] This court finds that it is material for the second defendant to explain as to why the new title deed was not 285 endorsed with the words ‘Rizab Melayu’ when it was issued. Since the second defendant has failed to appear as a witness in court to explain why the pendaftar did not endorse the new title deed with the words ‘Rizab Melayu’ when he/she issued the new title deed, therefore, this court 290 accepted the submission of the fourth defendant’s counsel to invoke s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 to presume that the second defendant has withheld material evidence which if produced it would be adverse to the second defendant’s case” 295 The decision in that case points to an important principle that a Gazette declaration alone does not conclusively determine the legal status of specific land unless there is clear documentary evidence linking the declaration to the present titles. If such 300 linkage is absent, or if the land register does not reflect the reservation and the authority fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, the court is entitled to treat the claim of Malay Reservation status with caution and, where appropriate, draw an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence 305 Act 1950. In the present case, the defendants’ position was that the lands had already been declared a Malay Reservation under the 1930 Gazette and that the absence of endorsement was merely an administrative omission. However, no evidence was produced to show whether any “Borang A” requisition had 310 been issued; why the Registrar did not enter a memorial on the titles when they were issued or thereafter; whether the omission was due to any error or administrative oversight; or how the lands could have been registered in 2012 in the names of non-Malay proprietors if they had always been Malay 315 Reservation. The defendants also did not aver in any affidavit to explain the absence of such endorsements. As such the court is entitled to treat the claim of Malay Reservation status with caution and draw an adverse inference. [22]. This court agrees with the reasoning in Bebe Sakimah (supra) 320 and Nor Azhar (supra). The steps prescribed under section 6 of Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933, are intended to give effect to the reservation and to provide notice to proprietors. Their omission cannot be cured by a retrospective administrative assertion. The defendants have not produced a single ‘Borang 325 A’, register entry, or title endorsement to prove compliance. [23]. Accordingly, the court finds that the second and third steps under section 6 of Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933 were never satisfied, and hence, the alleged Malay Reservation was never validly constituted over the plaintiffs’ lands. 330 Issue 3: Whether the Plaintiffs’ registration in 2012 confers an indefeasible title under Section 340 of the National Land Code [24]. The plaintiffs purchased the lands between late 2011 and early 2012, they were registered as proprietors on 12 January 2012, and hold issue documents of title showing no restriction. 335 Section 340(1) National Land Code 1965 declares that the registered proprietor holds an indefeasible title, subject only to exceptions specified in proviso section 340(2) namely, fraud, forgery, or registration obtained through void instruments. [25]. The court observes from the official title records that the subject 340 lands were first alienated on 21 November 1997. This establishes that the property was alienated land held under private ownership long before the 2015 notification of Malay Reserve status. As the plaintiffs (non-Malays) were registered proprietors by 2012, the lands were already non-Malay-owned 345 at the material time. Consequently, any declaration of such land as Malay Reserve in 2015 constitutes a clear contravention of Article 89(4) of the Federal Constitution, which prohibits the declaration of non-Malay-owned land as Malay Reserve. 350 [26]. The defendants did not allege fraud or forgery. Their argument rests solely on the contention that the plaintiffs’ titles are subordinate to a pre-existing statutory reservation. The court accepts that indefeasibility does not override statutory 355 prohibitions, but this principle presupposes the existence of a valid statutory reservation in the first place. As shown above, the reservation’s validity has not been proven. [27]. In Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2022] 1 MLJ 701; [2022] 2 360 CLJ 1; [2022] 2 MLRA 1, [2022] 2 AMR 525, the Federal Court reaffirmed the Torrens system of the mirror and curtain principles: a) The register reflects all interests and encumbrances (mirror principle); 365 b) One need not look behind the register to investigate unrecorded claims (curtain principle). Applying these principles, a purchaser is entitled to rely upon the register as conclusive evidence of title. The plaintiffs’ reliance on this principle is wholly justified. Their purchase was 370 bona fide for valuable consideration, relying on the clean register maintained by the State itself. [28]. The defendants’ contention that the absence of endorsement does not negate the reservation, cannot be accepted. An endorsement is not a mere administrative act; it is a legally 375 operative act of registration that brings the reservation into legal existence vis-à-vis proprietors. Without such endorsement, the reservation remains incomplete and unenforceable against third parties. [29]. The court therefore finds that the plaintiffs’ registration in 2012 380 was valid and effective. Their titles are indefeasible, and the State is estopped from asserting an unrecorded encumbrance that is not reflected in the register. Issue 4: Constitutional Implications under Article 89(4) [30]. Article 89(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that 385 nothing in that Article shall permit any land to be declared as a Malay Reservation if, at the time of the declaration, the land is owned or occupied by a non-Malay, or where a non-Malay then holds any right or interest in or over the land. This provision embodies the true spirit of the constitutional safeguard by 390 ensuring that Malay Reservations may only be created prospectively and not retrospectively in a manner that would divest non-Malays of their existing property rights. [31]. The plaintiffs contend that any declaration made in 2015, or any attempt to rely on a declaration only asserted in 2015 so 395 as to affect the plaintiffs’ existing titles, would effectively amount to a fresh declaration with retrospective effect, contrary to Article 89(4) of the Federal Constitution. The court agrees. Even assuming that the 1930 Gazette existed, it was never legally operative in relation to the plaintiffs’ lands. To now 400 treat it as revived or newly effective would effectively create a new reservation after 2012, when the lands had already vested in non-Malay proprietors. Such a result would be constitutionally impermissible. [32]. The court takes cognisance that Article 89(4) is intended to 405 prevent precisely this situation, where non-Malay proprietors are deprived of property by retrospective invocation of an unrecorded reservation. The Federal Constitution, as the supreme law, must prevail over any administrative irregularity or historical ambiguity. 410 [33]. Moreover, section 6 of the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933 was enacted to give practical effect to Article 89 by ensuring a transparent notice to all proprietors. The failure to implement section 6, therefore carries constitutional consequences. An unrecorded reservation cannot override constitutional 415 protection. [34]. The defendants also argued that the power to revoke or alter Malay Reservation status lies exclusively with the Menteri Besar under sections 3 and 4 of the Enactment, and thus the court has no jurisdiction to interfere. With respect, that 420 argument misapprehends the nature of this proceeding. The plaintiffs are not seeking a revocation of an existing reservation; they are challenging the validity and applicability of a reservation that was never shown to exist over their lands. The court, as guardian of legality, has jurisdiction to determine 425 whether administrative action has exceeded its lawful scope. As established in Bebe Sakimah (supra), the burden of proof lies with the State: "...the defendant had the legal and evidential burden to prove that the said property was Malay Reservation Land and was a 430 Malay holding so as to invoke all the prohibitions and restrictions in its dealings..." [35]. The court therefore holds that the purported reservation, whether attributed to 1930 or 2015, is constitutionally invalid 435 insofar as it purports to affect land already owned and registered in the names of non-Malay proprietors, contrary to Article 89(4) of the Federal Constitution. Additional Considerations: Equity and Good Faith [36]. The plaintiffs’ position is further strengthened by the equitable 440 principle of good faith reliance on the register. The State, as custodian of the register, bears responsibility for ensuring that restrictions are accurately recorded. The plaintiffs cannot be faulted for acting on the face of the official title documents. They neither participated in nor had notice of any 445 administrative omission. [37]. The defendants’ late production of a clearer Gazette copy does not cure the evidential gap. Historical instruments must be read together with the administrative records of implementation. The court is mindful that land records in colonial gazettes often 450 contained broad geographic descriptions without cadastral correlation. Without cross-reference to current titles, reliance on such documents would undermine the certainty that the Torrens system was designed to ensure. [38]. In United Malayan Banking Corp v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, 455 Kota Tinggi [1981] 2 MLJ 264; [1982] CLJ 23A; [1981] 1 MLRA 163, decided by Federal Court and later affirmed on appeal by the Privy Council in United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd & Anor v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kota Tinggi [1984] 2 MLJ 87; [1984] 1 MLRA 342, the courts 460 emphasised the comprehensive nature of the National Land Code in regulating rights and interests in land. The Federal Court observed that: “Held (4): the relevant provisions of the Code provide a complete Code regulating the respective rights and liabilities of the State 465 Authority and the registered proprietor of alienated land in relation to the rent payable and no recourse can legitimately be had to look beyond their specific terms to seek any relief for the alleviation of any complaint or hardship. The Code does not contemplate any power or right in the court to grant equitable 470 relief against forfeiture in the light of the specific provisions of the Code” The Privy Council likewise recognised that: “the National Land Code is a complete and comprehensive 475 code of law governing the tenure of land in Malaysia … and there is no room for the importation of any rules of English Law in that field except in so far as the Code itself may expressly provide for this” 480 These pronouncements dictate that the legal effect of rights and interests in land arises through the statutory system established by the Code. By the same reasoning, in the present case concerning Malay Reservation, a Gazette declaration alone, without the corresponding act of registration or 485 endorsement on the register document of title, cannot operate to affect the proprietary interests of the registered proprietors. [39]. On the balance of probabilities, the plaintiffs’ evidence i.e. their titles, correspondence, and statutory protection, outweighs the defendants’ uncorroborated assertion of a 1930 reservation. 490 The court finds no credible evidence of mistake or oversight in the issuance of the plaintiffs’ titles in 2012. The confusion arose only later when reliance was placed on an ambiguous and belatedly produced Gazette. Conclusion and Orders 495 [40]. In summary, the court finds that there is no satisfactory evidence that the plaintiffs’ lands were ever validly declared as a Malay Reservation, that the statutory procedures were not complied with, that the plaintiffs’ titles remain valid and indefeasible under section 340 of the National Land Code, 500 and that any subsequent assertion in 2015 is constitutionally invalid. In consequence, the court allows the plaintiffs’ Originating Summons and makes the following orders that: a) a declaration that the purported reservation of the parcels of land belonging to the 1st plaintiff in the District of 505 Manjung, namely the lands known as:

HSD 34831 No. PT 7829;

HSD 34832 No. PT 7830;

HSD 34833 No. PT 7831;

HSD 34834 No. PT 7832;

HSD 34835 No. PT 7833; and

HSD 34836 No. PT 7834 as Malay Reservation Land is null and void and of no legal effect pursuant to Article 89(4) of the Federal Constitution and/or section 6(vi) of the Enakmen 515 Rizab Melayu 1933; b) a declaration that the purported reservation of the parcels of land belonging to the 2nd plaintiff in the District of Manjung, namely the lands known as:

HSD 34819 No. PT 7817;

HSD 34820 No. PT 7818;

HSD 34821 No. PT 7819;

HSD 34822 No. PT 7820;

HSD 34823 No. PT 7821;

HSD 34824 No. PT 7822; 525

HSD 34825 No. PT 7823;

HSD 34837 No. PT 7835;

HSD 34838 No. PT 7836; and

HSD 34839 No. PT 7837 as Malay Reservation Land is null and void and of no legal 530 effect pursuant to Article 89(4) of the Federal Constitution and/or section 6(vi) of the Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933; c) the defendants are ordered to make the necessary corrections in the register of the plaintiffs’ land titles within 535 60 days from the date of this Order; and d) Costs of RM10,000.00 are awarded to the plaintiffs to be paid by the defendants. Dated : 12 March 2026 540 [MOSES SUSAYAN] 545 JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH, PERAK 550 Counsel For the Plaintiffs : Sachpreetraj Singh Sohanpal 555 (together with Izyan Azimi) Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs Raj & Sach] Petaling Jaya 560 For the Defendants : Mohd Fitri Bin Sadarudin Senior Federal Counsel [Perak State Legal Adviser’s Office] Ipoh, Perak 565 HEADNOTES: LAND LAW: Malay Reservation – Declaration under Gazette Notification No. 488 dated 17 January 1930 – Whether Plaintiffs’ 570 sixteen parcels of land in Mukim Sitiawan were lawfully declared as Malay Reservation – Whether Gazette made specific reference to Plaintiffs’ titles – Whether documentary linkage between 1930 Gazette and present titles established – Compliance with mandatory steps under section 6 Enakmen Rizab Melayu 1933 – Whether 575 reservation legally constituted – Whether Plaintiffs’ titles indefeasible under section 340 National Land Code – Whether later assertion in 2015 contravenes Article 89(4) Federal Constitution