SEE SUAN CHOO (No. K/P: 600619085538) S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw semuanya beralamat di No. 4A, Bangunan MBI, Jalan Ghazali Jawi 31400 IPOH, PERAK] ...PLAINTIFFS 430 AND PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI PERAK [Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian 435 Bangunan Seri Perak Darul Ridzuan Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab 30000 IPOH, PERAK] …DEFENDANTS 440 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This case concerns the wrongful conversion of land tenure from perpetual ownership to a 99-year leasehold by the Registrar of 445 Land. The plaintiffs allege that this administrative error affected numerous plots in Mukim Sitiawan, Daerah Manjung, Perak. The plots are as depicted in the intitulement above, which were originally held under perpetual ownership. This court previously ruled in Lim Poh Chuen & Anor v. Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak [2024] 7 450 CLJ 269, [2024] 11 MLJ 258, [2024] 5 AMR 417, involving neighbouring properties, also in Mukim Sitiawan, Daerah Manjung, Perak and the same defendant, in favour of the plaintiffs. Building on this precedent and the cases relied upon in Lim Poh Chuen S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw (supra), the plaintiffs contend that the tenure change was ultra vires 455 and unconstitutional, and seek rectification to restore their perpetual ownership rights. Facts [2] The plaintiffs, totalling 110 individuals, are the registered owners of 84 land titles. The original plans for these lands were registered and 460 issued in 1904, 1960, 1918, and 1929 under EMR (“Entry Mukim Register”) and/or CT (“Certificate of Title”). [3] Upon the enactment of the National Land Code 1965, EMR titles were reclassified as Geran Mukim, and CT titles as Geran, both indicating perpetual ownership. The master titles were submitted to 465 the defendant for housing development purposes, leading to subdivision and the issuance of individual titles. During this process, the defendant erroneously changed the tenure of the plaintiffs' lands from 'in perpetuity' to '99-year leasehold'. [4] The plaintiffs acquired their titles through transactions or 470 inheritance, with the titles already designated as 99-year leasehold at the time of acquisition. They were not the original owners and were aware of the leasehold status upon obtaining the titles. [5] The plaintiffs submit that prior to this suit, similar applications addressing the same issues resulted in favourable High Court 475 orders. The plaintiffs now seek correction of the defendant's error under Section 380 of the National Land Code, which allows the Registrar to amend errors in land titles. S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw The relief sought by the plaintiffs: a) a declaration that the 84 properties listed in the application, 480 currently registered as 99-year leasehold, are invalid and void. b) an order directing the Perak State Land Registrar to cancel the existing 99-year leasehold titles for these properties and issue new titles granting perpetual ownership. c) permission for the plaintiffs to file additional applications, if 485 necessary, to effectuate the court's orders. d) an order for costs. Issues a) Whether the defendant had the authority to alter the land tenure from perpetual ownership to 99-year leasehold; 490 b) Whether the plaintiffs, as subsequent purchasers, have the standing to challenge the alteration of land tenure; c) Whether the principle of caveat emptor applies to the plaintiffs' acquisition of the properties; and d) Whether the plaintiffs should have appealed under Section 495 418 of the National Land Code. Preliminary Objections by the Defendant [6] First preliminary objection: The defendant argues that they should not be named as a defendant in this case because the decision to grant the land to the original owners under a 99-year 500 leasehold was made by the State Authority (Pihak Berkuasa Negeri S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw - (PBN)). Therefore, any legal action against the PBN should be directed at the State Director, named in their official capacity, as the defendant merely executed the PBN's decision. [7] The defendant's preliminary objection is unfounded as the 505 registrar’s role is central to the erroneous registration of the titles. In Lim Poh Chuen (supra), this court held that the registrar (Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak), being the entity responsible for implementing title registrations, remains liable for ensuring compliance with statutory provisions under the National Land Code. 510 This includes the power to rectify errors under Section 380 of NLC. The defendant cannot absolve themselves by attributing the decision solely to the State Authority (PBN). [8] Second preliminary objection: The defendant contends that the plaintiffs should have initiated their challenge against the State 515 Authority's (PBN) decision to grant 99-year leasehold titles through a judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, rather than via the current proceedings. This argument is supported by the Federal Court's decision in Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 5 CLJ 865; [2010] 520 3 MLJ 145; [2010] 1 MLRA 524, which established that challenges to public authority decisions should generally be pursued through judicial review to prevent abuse of court process. The defendant emphasises that they merely executed the PBN's decision, and the nature of the case pertains solely to public law. 525 [9] The plaintiffs' claim concerns private rights of land ownership, not merely a public law issue. In Lim Poh Chuen & Anor v. Pendaftar S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw Hakmilik Negeri Perak (supra), this court held that originating summons is a valid originating process where the core dispute pertains to private rights, even if it involves a public authority's 530 decision. The plaintiffs challenge the wrongful conversion of perpetual ownership to leasehold, an act deemed ultra vires and unconstitutional. This case falls within the exceptions to the general rule in Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri (supra), making judicial review unnecessary. 535 [10] Third preliminary objection: The defendant asserts that there were significant inaccuracies in the identification of the plaintiffs in the case. However, the plaintiffs have applied to rectify these inaccuracies through amendments, with the defendant's consent. As a result, this matter is no longer a live issue and has been 540 resolved at the instance of disposal. Substantive Issue Issue 1: Authority to Alter Land Tenure [11] The Federal Court in Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v. Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 545 135; [1978] 1 MLRA 132, held that the government lacks the authority to compel a landowner to exchange a freehold title for a 99-year leasehold. This principle, reaffirmed in Ipoh Garden Bhd v. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Perak [1979] 1 MLJ 271; [1978] CLJU 70; [1978] 1 MLRH 609, and Leo Leslie Armstrong v. 550 Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [2015] 1 MLJ 255; [2015] 2 CLJ 10; [2014] 5 AMR 1 S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw (folld), where it was emphasised that any conversion of land tenure by an administrative body that exceeds its statutory powers is ultra vires. Similarly, in the case of Lim Poh Chuen & Anor (supra), this 555 court too upon reliance on the cases referred to above in this paragraph confirmed that the defendant's action in converting perpetual ownership to leasehold tenure was invalid as it contravened the National Land Code (“NLC”) and Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which protects property rights. 560 Issue 2: Standing of Subsequent Purchasers [12] The principle established in Ngo Ong Chung & Ors v. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Perak Darul Ridzuan [2013] 10 MLJ 879; [2013] CLJU 146; [2013] 6 MLRH 191, that doctrines such as estoppel cannot legitimise ultra vires actions, was relied upon by this 565 court in Lim Poh Chuen (supra). This court recognised it there and holds it so here, that subsequent purchasers, including the plaintiffs, have the standing to challenge the unlawful alteration of land tenure. This is consistent with the fundamental legal principle that constitutional violations cannot be perpetuated through 570 administrative oversights. For these same reasons, the second preliminary objection also fails. Issue 3: Application of Caveat Emptor [13] The plaintiffs argue that the principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) in Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v. Jabatan Pengairan 575 dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2022] 2 CLJ 1, [2022] 1 MLJ 701; [2022] 2 AMR 525; [2022] 2 MLRA 1, does not apply to the S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw current matter due to significant differences in the factual and legal issues involved. The doctrine of caveat emptor is generally limited to the physical condition or quality of the property and does not apply 580 to the tenure status. [14] In Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd (supra), the central issue was whether the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) applied to a purchaser who acquired land through a public auction, only to later discover the existence of a retention pond and related 585 structures on the property. The Federal Court there held that the purchaser should have conducted due diligence prior to the purchase and was therefore bound by the property's existing conditions. [15] In contrast, the present case concerns the improper alteration of 590 land tenure from freehold (in perpetuity) to a 99-year leasehold without legal authority. The plaintiffs argue that this change was ultra vires and contravenes Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution, which protects against the deprivation of property without adequate compensation. This issue pertains to the legality of administrative 595 actions affecting land tenure, rather than the purchaser's obligation to investigate the property's physical condition [16] Therefore, the principle of caveat emptor discussed in Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd (supra) is not relevant to the current case, as the plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the tenure conversion itself, 600 not any physical defects or undisclosed conditions of the property. S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw Issue 4: Appeal Under Section 418 of the NLC [17] The defendant contends that the plaintiffs should have appealed the State Authority's decision under Section 418 of the National Land 605 Code (Act 828), which provides a specific procedure for such appeals. In Leo Leslie Armstrong (supra), the Court of Appeal ruled that failure to appeal under Section 418 of the NLC is not fatal to a claim challenging the validity of an ultra vires decision. This reasoning was adopted in Lim Poh Chuen (supra), where this court 610 acknowledged that the plaintiffs’ failure to appeal under Section 418 did not bar their action, as the matter involved a fundamental breach of constitutional and statutory law. Conclusion [18] The court held that the defendant's alteration of the plaintiffs' land 615 tenure from perpetual ownership to a 99-year leasehold was ultra vires, unconstitutional, and in breach of the National Land Code. As established in Lim Poh Chuen (supra), the plaintiffs, including subsequent purchasers, have the legal standing to challenge the wrongful alteration, and the principle of caveat emptor does not 620 apply. The court declared that the tenure of the disputed land titles is in perpetuity and ordered the Registrar of Land Titles, Perak, to cancel the existing 99-year leasehold titles, replacing them with titles reflecting perpetual ownership. The plaintiffs are granted the liberty to file ancillary applications, if necessary, to implement the 625 orders. Accordingly, enclosure 1 is allowed, with parties bearing their respective costs. S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw Date : 27 January 2025 630 Moses Susayan ------------------------------------------- MOSES SUSAYAN Judicial Commissioner 635 High Court in Malaya at Ipoh, Perak Counsel: 640 For the plaintiffs : Nurareena binti Said Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs Azura Mokhtar & Low] Ipoh, Perak 645 For the defendant s : Mohd Fitri bin Sadaruddin Senior Federal Counsel [Advisory Unit] State Legal Advisor Offices Perak Legal Advisor Offices 650 655 [Notice: This Grounds of Decision is subject to official editorial revision] S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw Headnotes: Civil Procedure — Action — Mode of commencing proceedings — Conversion of land tenure from perpetual to leasehold by land registrar — 660 Whether originating summons seeking correction to restore original perpetual ownership or freehold status is valid where the dispute pertains to private rights of landowners rather than public law considerations. Constitutional Law — Fundamental liberties — Right to property — Conversion of land tenure from perpetual to leasehold by land registrar — 665 Whether conversion violated Article 13 of the Federal Constitution — Whether conversion of land tenure by the registrar was ultra vires the National Land Code and unconstitutional. Land Law — Title — Alteration of tenure — Conversion of perpetual ownership to 99-year leasehold — Plaintiffs sought rectification of titles 670 under Section 380 of the National Land Code — Whether the defendant acted beyond their statutory authority in altering land tenure. Administrative Law — Public authority decision — Whether failure to appeal under Section 418 of the National Land Code bars challenge to an ultra vires decision — Applicability of judicial review where private 675 property rights are at issue. Doctrine of Caveat Emptor — Applicability — Whether principle applies to the legality of land tenure alteration — Whether administrative actions affecting tenure, distinct from property defects or undisclosed conditions. 680 S/N 5cGy47PSj0zsnqPbk7vIw