The reservation of any land for a public purpose … may … be revoked by the State Authority at any time, either as respects the whole of the land or as respects any part thereof…’” 325 S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug Further, the court observed: “[15] Jelas di sini bahawa kehendak peruntukan subseksyen 64(2) dan 64(3) telah dipatuhi dengan sempurna sebelum kuasa pembatalan perizaban tanah di bawah subseksyen 330 64(1) digunapakai dalam kes ini. [16] …saya dapati tiada penyalahan undang-undang dalam keputusan responden ketiga membatalkan perizaban…” [18]. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not shown any illegality, 335 procedural impropriety, or lack of jurisdiction in the exercise of that power. The evidence shows that the State Authority acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the National Land Code. Where a statutory power has been lawfully exercised, the court cannot interfere with the administrative 340 discretion of the State Authority. [19]. In the context of the present case, the court’s concern is confined to the legality of the decision to cancel the reservation and not with the wisdom, desirability, or policy considerations underlying that decision. Having considered the evidence 345 before the court, the plaintiffs have failed to show any breach of the requirements prescribed under section 64 of the National Land Code, which led to the cancellation of the reservation. Accordingly, the challenge to the legality of the cancellation cannot be sustained. 350 S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug Issue c: Challenge to cancellation on the ground of lack of notice [20]. The plaintiffs do not dispute that no objection was recorded at the inquiry conducted on 30 October 2019. Their position, 355 however, is that the absence of objections stems from the fact that they were never aware of the inquiry. The plaintiffs contend that they were not served with the notice of the proposed cancellation issued pursuant to section 64(2) of the NLC. Consequently, neither the plaintiffs nor the residents of 360 the Kuala Punti kariah attended the inquiry. On that basis, the plaintiffs argue that the inquiry was procedurally defective and that the revocation of the reservation cannot be justified on the ground that no objections were recorded. [21]. The defendants dispute this contention. They submit that the 365 first defendant conducted an inquiry on 30 October 2019 between 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. at the Meeting Room of the Kinta District and Land Office. Following the inquiry, the State Authority revoked the reservation after considering a report prepared by the first defendant and noting that no objections 370 had been recorded. The defendants rely on the objection form exhibited in the supporting affidavit, which shows that no objections were received during the inquiry. [22]. The defendants further contend that the notice of the proposed revocation was properly publicised through Perak Government 375 Gazette No. 1946. The Kinta Land Administrator had issued directions through a letter dated 24 October 2019 for the Gazette notice to be publicised. The defendants submit that S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug such publication was carried out in accordance with section 433 of the NLC and therefore satisfied the statutory 380 requirement for notification of the inquiry. [23]. In these circumstances, the defendants maintain that the procedure prescribed under section 64 of the NLC was duly complied with. They argue that the plaintiffs’ absence from the inquiry cannot invalidate the statutory process, as the law 385 requires notice by publication rather than personal service upon individual residents or interested persons. Issue d: The National Land Code overrides historical wakaf assertions. [24]. The plaintiffs place heavy reliance on the concept of wakaf 390 under the Enakmen Wakaf (Perak) 2015. However, that enactment does not override the operation of the National Land Code. Under the Torrens system practised in Malaysia, the register is conclusive. Even land intended for wakaf purposes remains subject to the statutory land system, 395 including the requirements of registration and compliance with the conditions of title. [25]. As held in Hotel Sentral (JB) Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Johor [2016] 3 CLJ 931; [2016] MLJU 1894; [2016] MLRHU 79, the land rights, reservations, and the 400 legal status of land must be determined strictly according to the provisions of the National Land Code. Historical S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug descriptions or assumptions about the land cannot override the statutory requirements under the Code. The court held: “[41] Section 62(1) of the National Land Code empowers the 405 State Authority to reserve any State land for any public purpose… Any notification gazetted under sub-section (1)… shall be conclusive evidence that the land so described is reserved for a public purpose.” 410 Further, the court emphasised that the legal status of land must be determined strictly according to the statutory mechanism under the Code: “[43] …It is thus clear that not having been gazetted, the said land cannot in law be considered as a reserved land within 415 the meaning and ambit ascribed to it by sections 5 and 62(1) of the National Land Code. Thus, the premise of the Applicant's primary contention that assumes the Said Land being a reserved land is wholly misconceived and unsustainable” 420 [26]. In the present case, the status and rights relating to the land must be determined strictly in accordance with the National Land Code. Historical descriptions or assumptions cannot override the statutory requirements of the Code, particularly those relating to gazettement and registration. In these 425 circumstances, the plaintiffs’ primary contention that the Said Land constitutes reserved land is misconceived and cannot be sustained. S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug Issue e: Whether registration under section 340 of the NLC confers an indefeasible title. 430 [27]. After the reservation was cancelled, the land was alienated and registered in the name of MAIPk. The titles contain express conditions restricting the use of the land to mosque and cemetery purposes as wakaf khas. Upon registration, MAIPk became the registered proprietor of the land under the 435 Torrens system established by the National Land Code. [28]. Section 340(1) of NLC provides that the title of a registered proprietor is indefeasible. As explained by the Federal Court in Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & Ors [2020] 2 MLJ 1; [2010] 2 CLJ 269; [2010] 1 AMR 557, a registered title may only be 440 challenged if one of the limited grounds under section 340(2) of the NLC is strictly proven, such as fraud or a void instrument. [29]. In the present case, the plaintiffs have neither pleaded nor proven fraud. They have also failed to establish any statutory 445 ground recognised under the National Land Code to impeach the registered titles. The cancellation of the reservation and the subsequent alienation were carried out pursuant to express statutory powers, and the registration cannot therefore be said to have arisen from a void instrument. 450 [30]. In the absence of any ground under section 340(2), this court cannot go behind the register or set aside the registered titles merely because the plaintiffs disagree with the manner in which the State Authority exercised its statutory powers. S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug Issue f: Limits of Judicial Intervention 455 [31]. In substance, the plaintiffs invite the court to replace the decision of the State Authority with its own view on matters of land administration and policy. That is not the role of the court. Judicial intervention is limited to cases involving illegality, procedural impropriety, or lack of jurisdiction. 460 [32]. As held in Ipoh Garden Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Perak [1979] 1 MLJ 271; [1978] 1 MLRH 609; [1978] CLJU 70, the court is concerned only with the legality of the administrative process. The court does not review the merits of the decision or the policy considerations underlying it. His 465 Lordship Hashim Yeop A Sani J (as he then was) said: “It is not the province of the Court to review decisions of government departments merely on their merits. This is based on the principle that Judges cannot usurp the 470 functions of the executive nor the legislature. The power of the Court to interfere in cases of this nature is not that of an appellate authority but the power of the Court is that of a judicial authority which is concerned only to see whether the subordinate authority has in any way contravened the law 475 by acting in excess of the powers which the legislature has conferred upon it.” [33]. On the evidence before the court, none of these grounds has been established. S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug Registration in the Name of MAIPk Does Not Render the 480 Alienation Unlawful. [34]. During the hearing on 13.1.2026, the plaintiffs expressed dissatisfaction with the land being registered in the name of MAIPk rather than remaining as reserved land for burial purposes. The plaintiffs contend that MAIPk ought to act only 485 as a trustee of wakaf property, not as the registered proprietor. They argue that registration as proprietor may allow future dealings with the land and is therefore inconsistent with wakaf principles. [35]. The defendants dispute this contention. They submit that the 490 land was lawfully subdivided into two lots, one designated for a mosque and the other for an Islamic cemetery, both carrying express conditions restricting their use to those purposes. The defendants further submit that the registration of the land in the name of MAIPk is consistent with Section 7 of the Enakmen 495 Wakaf (Perak) 2015, which provides that every wakaf must be registered in the name of the Majlis as the authority responsible for the administration of wakaf in the State. [36]. The defendants also point out that wakaf property cannot be freely dealt with. Under Section 4(2) of the Enakmen Wakaf 500 (Perak) 2015, wakaf property cannot be sold, transferred, gifted, inherited, or otherwise disposed of in a manner inconsistent with its wakaf character. In addition, the titles themselves carry express conditions limiting the use of the land to mosque and cemetery purposes. Therefore, the 505 S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug plaintiffs’ concern that MAIPk may freely dispose of the land is misconceived. [37]. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs’ concern that MAIPk is registered as proprietor rather than merely as trustee does not affect the legality of the alienation. The registration reflects the 510 statutory framework governing wakaf administration in the State. Once the land was lawfully alienated and registered, the titles enjoy the protection afforded under the National Land Code unless successfully impeached on recognised statutory grounds. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ objection on this basis 515 cannot be sustained. Conclusion [38]. The reservation made in 1910 does not override the express statutory powers of the State Authority under the National Land Code. The State Authority acted within its powers under 520 section 64 of the NLC, in cancelling the reservation and thereafter alienating the land to MAIPk. Upon registration, MAIPk obtained an indefeasible title under section 340 of the NLC. The plaintiffs have failed to establish any legal basis to challenge either the administrative actions of the State 525 Authority or the registered titles. [39]. The plaintiffs have not shown that the cancellation of the reservation pursuant to section 64 of the NLC was unlawful. The registered titles in favour of MAIPk enjoy statutory S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug protection and cannot be impeached on the grounds 530 advanced. [40]. Accordingly, the Originating Summons is dismissed. Costs RM5000 awarded to the defendants, subject to allocator. 535 Dated : 18 March 2026 540 [MOSES SUSAYAN] JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH, PERAK 545 550 555 S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug Counsel For the Applicants : Norazura Mokhtar Advocates and Solicitors 560 [Messrs Azura Mokhtar & Low] Ipoh, Perak For the Respondents : Mohd Fitri Bin Sadarudin Senior Federal Counsel 565 [Perak State Legal Adviser’s Office] Ipoh, Perak 570 (Notice: This Grounds of Decision is subject to official editorial revision) Headnotes: LAND LAW: Reservation of land – Cancellation of reservation – 575 Challenge by residents and mosque committee – Whether 1910 reservation created irrevocable wakaf khas – Whether reservation under Enakmen Tanah 1903 removed land from control of State Authority – Whether State Authority empowered under s 64 National Land Code to revoke reservation – Whether statutory procedures for 580 revocation complied with – Whether plaintiffs proved illegality, procedural impropriety or lack of jurisdiction – Applicability of Torrens S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug system – Whether historical description of wakaf overrides statutory framework of National Land Code – Whether land rights determined strictly by statutory mechanism of gazettement and registration – 585 Effect of registration under s 340 NLC – Whether registered title of MAIPk defeasible – Whether fraud or void instrument proven – Limits of judicial intervention in land administration – Whether court concerned only with legality of administrative process. 590 S/N 8Ab5vIu2dkC6txSoC4c0Ug