Ekve Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah, Daerah Gombak (BA-21NCvC-31-06/2019)

PRISTINE POWER SN BHD

CHRISTINE CHIN SIEW LIN (NRIC NO.: 610225-71-5110) … DEFENDANTS (CONSOLIDATED WITH) IN THE MATTER OF HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT NO. BA-21NCVC-23-05/2020 BETWEEN PRISTINE POWER SDN BHD … PLAINTIFF (COMPANY NO.: 375729-X) 10/03/2026 14:44:20 BA-21NCvC-31-06/2019 Kand. 486 S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

LAND ADMINISTRATOR DISTRICT OF GOMBAK DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 1. Suit No. BA-21NCVC-31-06/2019 (Suit 31) and BA-21NCVC-23- 05/2020 (Suit 23) were consolidated pursuant to a Court Order dated 9-3-2021 and heard before this Court.

In Suit 31, the plaintiff claims negligent conduct, breach of statutory obligations under the National Land Code, and the tort of inducing losses through unlawful means against the Land Administrator of Gombak District, the Registrar of Titles of Selangor, the Director of Survey and Mapping of Selangor, the 1st to 3rd defendants, and the 5th defendant. The 6th and 7th defendants are accused of dishonestly and/or fraudulently pursuing and applying for a final title for PN119290, Lot 126868 Seksyen 2, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor, for a parcel of land approximately 3549 m² in size.

In Suit 23, the 6th defendant initiated legal proceedings against the Selangor State Government, the State Director of Lands and Mines, Selangor, and the Land Administrator, District of Gombak, seeking S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw damages and compensation should the plaintiff’s claim against Pristine Power and Christine Chin be upheld under Suit 31.

The full trial was conducted, and the decision of the Court is as follows.

4.1. Case BA-21NCVC-31-06/2019

4.2. On the balance of probabilities, this Court finds that the plaintiff has proven its case against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th defendants, including but not limited to the points listed below:

The Scheduled Land, acquired pursuant to the Selangor Government Gazette Notification No. 1309 dated 27-3-2018, is the Acquired Land that was previously acquired and vested in the State Authority and/or Government on or about 15-1-1996;

The Scheduled Land was wrongly included in the 6th defendant’s final title registered under PN119290, Lot 126868 Seksyen 2, Bandar Ulu Kelang, District of Gombak. As a result, the 6th defendant’s final title is erroneous and void, and is ordered to be set aside. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th defendants are negligent and breach their statutory duties in the course of their respective roles and functions.

The 6th and 7th defendants committed an act of fraud against the plaintiff.

The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants committed the tort of causing loss by unlawful means against the plaintiff.

4.3. This Court Orders as follows:

4.3.1. A declaration that 0.0595 hectares (0.147 acres) of land held under Roll of Approved Applications No.2/60 or HSM11695, Lot PT1242, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor was acquired and vested in the State Authority and/ or Government on or about 15-1-1996;

4.3.2. A declaration that the Scheduled Land acquired pursuant to Selangor Government Gazette Notification No.1309 dated 27-3- 2018 is the Acquired Land, which was previously acquired and vested in the State Authority and/or the Government on or about 15-1-1996; S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

4.3.3. A declaration that the Final Title held under PN119290, Lot 126868 Seksyen 2, Bandar Ulu Kelang, District of Gombak is erroneous and void and/or is defeasible, therefore to be set aside;

4.3.4. A declaration that PA235704 for the final title held under PN119290, Lot 126868 Seksyen 2, Bandar Ulu Kelang, District of Gombak is erroneous and void;

4.3.5. The 5th defendant shall take all necessary measures to amend PA235704 with the objective of excluding the Acquired Land, in accordance with Section 396A of the

4.3.6. The 1st and/or the 2nd defendant cancels or sets aside the Final Title held under PN119290, Lot 126868 Seksyen 2, Bandar Ulu Kelang, District of Gombak, and issues a new Final Title following the amendment to PA235704 as ordered above (3.5);

4.3.7. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages amounting to RM9,842,676.68; S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

4.3.8. Interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the amount of RM9,842,676.68, commencing from the date of the writ, 18-6-2019, and continuing until full recovery of the said sum.

4.3.9. Costs awarded against the defendants as follows:

4.3.9.1. 1st to 3rd defendants: RM90,000.00;

4.3.9.2. 5th defendant: RM20,000.00;

4.3.9.3. 6th and 7th defendants:

4.3.10. Case BA-21NCVC-23-05/2020

4.3.11. On the balance of probabilities, this Court finds that the plaintiff has proven its case against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, including but not limited to the point listed below.

4.3.12. The defendants are negligent and have breached their statutory duties as pleaded in the statement of claim. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

4.3.13. General damages are to be assessed solely with regard to paragraphs 30.1 to 30.5 in the statement of claim.

4.3.14. Interest on the amount of damages awarded as deemed fit at that time;

4.3.15. Costs RM30,000.00.

4.3.16. Counter-claim to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

Hence, an appeal has been filed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 7th defendants in respect of Suit 31 and by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants in respect of Suit 23. Background Facts Suit 31 6. The land originally formed part of a larger 6.6-acre property and was alienated to Arthur Anselem De Silva through Roll of Approval Application No. 2/60 (“AA 2/60”). This has been admitted by the 1st to 3rd defendants in paragraphs 15 and 15.1 of their amended defence.

This 6.6-acre parcel of land, designated as Lot 1242, was surveyed in 1962, and the certified plan (Plan No. 24465, also known as “PA 24465”) received approval from Ahmad Daud on 4-2-1963. “PA” denotes Pelan Akui. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

Part of Lot 1242 was acquired in 1994/1995, as evidenced by the following documents:

The declaration under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 made in the Government of Selangor Gazette, which listed Lot 1242 as one of the lands to be involved in the acquisition for the purpose of "Jalan Lingkaran Tengah II (“JLT 2”) – Kuala Lumpur Pakej 6” [Middle Ring Road II (“MMR 2”) – Kuala Lumpur, Pakej 6]. The area to be acquired was 23.52 poles, which is equivalent to 0.147 acres or 0.0595 hectares.

(ii) The land acquisition plan for “Jalan Lingkaran Tengah II - Kuala Lumpur Pakej 6” encompasses 0.147 acres of land. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

(iii) the Form K issued by the Land Administrator on 31-7-1965. Those 0.147 acres of land will be referred to as “Acquired Land”.

A memorial was made on AA 2/60 stating that 0.147 acres of land were acquired, leaving 6.453 acres unacquired. This memorial was made pursuant to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

A new title was issued in the name of Arthur Anselem De Silva. It was a qualified title held under H.S.(M) 11695, PT 1242, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor (hereinafter referred to as “Lot 1242"), with an area of 2.611 hectares or 6.45 acres.

On 12-12-2001, the State Authority of Selangor approved Arthur Anselem’s “permohonan serah balik pemberimilikan” for Lot 1242 to obtain a 99-year lease. This approval for the surrender of the entire Lot 1242 was registered on 21-3-2002.

A new qualified title issued under H.S. (D) 42310, PT 1175, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor Darul Ehsan (“PT 1175”) was registered in the name of Arthur Anselem De Silva, who subsequently sold the land to Melaniaga Sdn Bhd (“Melaniaga”).

The size of PT 1175 was 2.427 hectares, or 5.997 acres. At this point, the Acquired Land was excluded from PT 1175. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

On 13-11-2003, Melaniaga sold PT 1175 to Beverly Heights Development Sdn Bhd through a Sale and Purchase Agreement. At that time, the directors and shareholders of Beverly Heights were DW6 Jeffrey and DW5 Christine, who signed the agreement on behalf of the company.

On 11-2-2004, the Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 4) Order, 2004 (“2004 Order’), was issued by the Minister of Works. Item 39 designates this section of the MRR2 as a Federal Road in accordance with the Federal Roads Act, 1959.

Based on the layout plan prepared by EKVE’s draughtsman at the instruction of PW3 Raja, the segment of MRR2 between the coordinates North (N) 3892.670, East (E) 4900.000, and North (N) -

1751.250, East (E) 5139.000, encompasses the Acquired Land. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

In 2005 and 2006, another certified plan was being prepared by JUPEM for Lot 21226 (formerly part of Lot 1242). It provided the lot number for Lot 21226. It is not disputed that this certified plan relates to the same land as PT 1175.

This survey was based on the Borang Permintaan Ukur received by JUPEM from the Land Administrator, District of Gombak, on 19-4-

The survey was conducted on PT 1175, with an estimated area of 2.427 hectares (5.998 acres). PT 1175 was coloured red by DW2 in his witness statement, marked WSDW2. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

The relevant certified plan, PA107794, was only approved by the then Director of JUPEM Selangor, DW3 John, on 28-2-2008. This “Lot 21226 dahulunya sebahagian Lot 1242 (PA 24465)” was measured by JUPEM at 2.447 hectares or 6.046 acres, which is consistent with the area held under PT 1175 in Beverly Heights. PA 107794 incorporated the previous acquisition from 1994/1995 and excludes the Acquired Land.

Beverly Heights applied for subdivision and immediate re-alienation of PT 1175 under section 204B of the National Land Code. The Borang 12D completed by Beverly Heights clearly indicates that the application was based on the premise that PT 1175 had a size of 2.427 hectares (5.997 acres). The application was approved by the Land Administrator, District of Gombak, on 23-7-2008.

The pre-computation plan and survey plan relied upon by Beverly Heights, however, were based on PA 24465, which is a larger piece of land than what Beverly Heights had in PT 1175. This is confirmed by the evidence of:

PW1 Chew, who made a comparison between PA 24465 and PA 107794: S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

(ii) PW2 Firhat, who made a comparison through his Boundary Re-Marking exercise:

(iii) DW1 Shahril confirmed that the land size in PA 107794 had decreased from 6.6 acres to 5.997 acres. He further verified that Beverly Heights relied on PA 24465 in preparing its pre-computation plan.

(iv) DW3 John, who confirmed that PA 24465 indicates a larger plot of land than that held under PT 1175.

DW4 Fong, who confirmed there is an error in his pre-computation plan:

DW1 Shahril confirmed during cross-examination that there was an error in the proposed development or pre-computation plan submitted by Beverly Heights, as Beverly Heights only owned 5.997 S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw acres under PT 1175, not 6.37 acres as indicated in the plans. This resulted in the Acquired Land, which has been gazetted as a Federal Road, being incorrectly included in the title of PT 1175.

PT 1175 was subdivided into 40 individual titles, one of which is the qualified title held under H.S.(D) 69789, PT 4501, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Gombak, Selangor (“PT 4501”). The Acquired Land was also included in PT 4501.

This is evident from the length of the western-most edge PT 4501, which has a bearing of 2800 40’ 50”. It measures 36.520 metres, exceeding the length of the same edge as shown in PA 107794 (22.925 metres).

Beverly Heights sold PT 4501 to Pristine Power through a Sale and Purchase of Land Agreement dated 23-4-2007. The transfer registration from Beverly Heights to Pristine Power took place on 14-9-2010.

A qualified title for PT 4501 was issued in the name of Pristine Power.

Beverly Heights obtained planning permission from Majlis Perbandaran Ampang (“MPAJ”) on 20-5-2008 for a 6.37-acre development on PT 1175.

MPAJ subsequently approved an amendment to the planning permission on 26-5-2009, which involved the following amendment: S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

Pristine Power and Christine Chin built a three-storey bungalow on PT 4501. The Certificate of Completion and Compliance was issued on 24-6-2014.

EKVE was established on 7-11-2007 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Ahmad Zaki Resources Berhad (“AZRB"), created exclusively to execute the East Klang Valley Expressway project (“EKVE Project”).

On the 13-2-2013, the government of Malaysia and EKVE entered into a Concession Agreement.

There were three main packages for the EKVE Project. The package relevant to this action is Package 3, also known as “Proposed Upgrading Existing Jalan Ukay Perdana & Kg Pasir Interchange at MRR II (package 3); Kg Pasir Interchange and

Package 3 involves building an elevated U-turn ramp or “Ramp1” on sections of the Acquired Land to reduce traffic congestion at Kg. Pasir Interchange on the MRR2.

To this end, EKVE initially required 50m² of Lot 1242, and a declaration under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1960, for S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw the acquisition of the said 50m² was published in the Government of Selangor Gazette on 7-11-2013.

Although Lot 1242 was surrendered back to the State Authority of Selangor and a new title, PT 1175, was issued, EKVE’s land consultant was able to carry out an official search on Lot 1242 on 1st July 2013. The search revealed that Arthur Anselem De Silva was still the registered proprietor of Lot 1242. Therefore, the Section 8 declaration still listed Arthur Anselem De Silva as the owner of Lot 1242.

It is crucial to understand EKVE’s obligations and rights under the Concession Agreement, in which EKVE is referred to, among other things, as “the Company”. Pursuant to Clause 9.1.1. to the Concession Agreement, the Government shall provide the land as required by EKVE.

Clause 9.4.1 of the Concession Agreement states that the government still bears all costs, expenses, or charges incurred (“Land Costs”) in making the land available, including “any compensation required to be paid for the acquisition thereof (including compensation granted by any Court of law to the landowners)”. However, by virtue of Clause 9.4.2, “the Land Cost to be borne by the government shall be limited to the amount of Ringgit three hundred and sixty million (RM360,000,000.00) only. Any land cost exceeding this amount shall be borne by the company”.

EKVE’s witness, PW3 Raja, testified that “since March 2017, the land cost had exceeded the said sum of RM360,000,000.00. EKVE S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw accordingly is required under the Concession Agreement to pay any further Land Cost over and above the said sum of RM360,000,000.00, a fact not disputed.

EKVE subsequently decided not to proceed with the acquisition of the 50m2 of Lot 1242, as they assessed that the existing MRR2 road reserve or right of way (“ROW”) was sufficient for constructing the aforementioned Ramp 1.

The existence of this ROW is evident from the following tender drawings:

In late 2016, EKVE discovered that the existing MRR2 road reserve was within the land's compound, and EKVE was prevented by Christine Chin from entering the land. A dispute then arose over whether part of the land encroached on the existing MRR2 road reserve or belonged to Pristine Power. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

This prompted further investigations and surveys by EKVE, and it was found that there is “pertindihan” between the ROW and the land held under PT 4501.

By correspondence dated 25-11-2016, EKVE notified Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (“LLM”) of EKVE’s belief that “Lot 4501 yang telah dipecah lot kepada pembeli telah dibuat tanpa mengambilkira pengambilan balik tanah yang kami maksudkan. Oleh yang demikian, ia telah mengakibatkan berlakunya pertindihan sebahagian daripada tanah tersebut dengan rizab JLT2."

By letter dated 22-11-2016, EKVE also wrote to Dato’ Amirul Azizan bin Abdul Rahim, the then Pegawai Daerah of the Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Gombak. In this letter, EKVE stated, inter alia, the following: S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

The Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Persekutuan (Negeri Selangor) (“JKPTG Selangor”) also sent a letter dated 18- 1-2017 to LLM, stating that compensation for the Acquired Land was paid into the Shah Alam High Court on 2nd April 1996, and in their view, “sebahagian tanah yang terlibat telah menjadi Kerajaan dan permohonan untuk merekodkan semula endorsan Borang K perlu dilakukan”.

Finally, by letter dated 20-3-2017, the Kementerian Kerja Raya (“KKR”) corresponded with the Land Administrator of the District of Gombak, conveying, among other matters, the following:

the Acquired Land has been previously acquired for MRR2 Package 6; compensation for the said acquisition had been deposited in Court, and Form K under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 had been issued by the Land

(ii) There was an error in the Pelan Kebenaran Merancang issued subsequently in October 2008, as it was based on PA 24465, which had not taken into account the Acquired Land.

(iii) the Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Gombak had stated that PA 107794 should have been used instead to approve the said Kebenaran Merancang; S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

(iv) This error had wrongly resulted in the Acquired Land being issued with a title held under PT 4501 measuring 3,524 m2, and that Pristine Power was its registered proprietor.

KKR suggested that the Acquired Land be removed from PT 4501 by converting the qualified title to a final title in accordance with

(vi) KKR did not agree to the re-acquisition of the Acquired Land because it had been acquired and compensation had been paid pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1960, in 1995.

KKR also requested that a Registrar’s Caveat be lodged over PT 4501 pursuant to Sections 319 and 320 of the National Land Code to prevent any dealings over the Land and to safeguard the interests of the Federal Government.

On 4-5-2017, EKVE’s solicitors wrote to Pristine Power’s previous solicitors, Messrs Azim Tunku Farik & Wong, stating the following: “Our client was at all material times informed that the portion of land which the works for the EKVE Projects is currently being undertaken was compulsorily acquired pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1960, and that the relevant Notice that Possession Has S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw Been Taken of the Land (Borang K) was issued by the Land Administrator as far back as 31st July 1995.”

DW5 Christine subsequently engaged PW1 Chew to conduct a survey of the Land for the purpose of issuing the final title. PW1 Chew completed the survey and prepared PA 235704, which included the Acquired Land. Despite having approved the certified plan PA 107794, which had taken into account the previous acquisition of the Acquired Land in 1994/1995 and therefore did not include the Acquired Land, JUPEM negligently and/or in breach of its statutory duties proceeded to approve PW1 Chew’s survey and PA 235704 on 28-6-2017 without making any enquiries whatsoever.

The Final Title was issued to Pristine Power by the Registrar of Titles on 14-8-2017, despite the letter from KKR to the Land Administrator on 20-3-2017, which, among other things, suggested that the Acquired Land be removed when converting the qualified title to the final title, and that the Registrar’s Caveat be lodged on the said land in the meantime to protect the interests of the Federal Government. The land is accordingly held as Final Title, PN 119290, Lot 126868, Seksyen 2, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Gombak, Selangor.

By letter dated 5-10-2017, LLM informed AZRB that “Lot PT 4501 terdapat kesilapan ketika kelulusan Kebenaran Merancang yang menggunapakai pelan PA 24465 yang menyebabkan tanah hasil pengambilan terdahulu telah didaftarkan sebagai sebahagian hakmilik HS(D) 69789 PT 4501 Bandar Ulu Kelang. Oleh yang demikian, berlakunya pertindihan sebahagian tanah hakmilik tersebut dengan rizab Jalan Lingkaran Tengah 2 (JLT2)." LLM then S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw requested AZRB (the letter should have been addressed to EKVE) to submit a land acquisition plan for the additional land for Final Title PN 112920 Lot 126868 Seksyen 2, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Gombak, Selangor.

This resulted in the declaration under Section 8 being published in the Selangor Government Gazette on 29-3-2018, for the acquisition of 693 m2 of the Acquired Land.

Following a land enquiry before DW8 Hasnan, he awarded a total sum of RM11,210,235.70 as compensation for the acquisition of the Scheduled Land. Both EKVE and Pristine Power lodged their respective objections against the said award of compensation, which were referred to court by the Land Administrator, District of Gombak.

It is Pristine Power’s contention that it is the registered owner of the said land, held under HS(D) 69789, PT 4501, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor, measuring approximately 3524.21 m2.

Pristine Power bought the land at a purchase price of RM1,140,720.00, equating to RM30.00 per square foot, from Beverly Heights. The land originated from a subdivision of a master title registered under HS(D) 42310, PT1175, Bandar Ulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor, and was registered under Beverly Heights. Beverly Heights bought PT1175 from Melaniaga. Melaniaga bought PT1175 from one Arthur Anselem. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

Christine Chin and her family lived in a two-storey Asian-style villa, which featured a swimming pool, garden, gazebo, lily pond, and tennis court. The Asian-style villa was completed around 2013, and a Certificate of Compliance and Completion for the said villa was issued on 24-6-2014.

In 2014, representatives from EKVE/Ahmad Zaki Resources Sdn Bhd/Ahmad Zaki Sdn Bhd, along with representatives from the 1st and 3rd defendants and the State Authorities, visited Pristine Power’s land to conduct a survey for road widening works. When access was granted, they made several markings on the land. When Christine Chin asked whether the land would be acquired or affected by the road works, they assured her that the land would not be affected or acquired.

On about 25-10-2016, representatives from EKVE/Ahmad Zaki Resources Sdn Bhd/Ahmad Zaki Sdn Bhd and the local authorities, Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya, visited the Land and informed Christine Chin that part of the Land would be acquired for the construction of the East Klang Valley Expressway. They further informed her that an elevated U-turn will be built on and next to the Land. They also informed her that part of the wall constructed on the Land had to be demolished, as it was said to encroach onto the State Land.

All the representatives' claims that there was an encroachment on the State Land were denied by Christine Chin. Her position was that she was the registered owner of the land. Accordingly, Pristine S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw Power corresponded with AZRB to request that the highway be realigned to avoid taking any part of Christine Chin's land.

In approximately November 2016, representatives from EKVE/Ahmad Zaki Resources Sdn Bhd/Ahmad Zaki Sdn Bhd, including Mr Mohd Khalid Mohamad, revisited the Land and formally notified that the construction of the EKVE Expressway on the specified portion of the Land would proceed.

At this point, Christine Chin was also informed that part of the Land had previously been acquired and that Pristine Power allegedly encroached upon it. She and Pristine Power maintain that they had no knowledge of any prior acquisition of the Land. She also disputed, stating that the Land was legally purchased from Beverly Heights. If an Expressway is to be built on part of the Land, they believe they should be compensated when the Land is acquired. In December 2017, she was notified that her land would be acquired for the construction of the EKVE Expressway.

Christine Chin argued that the representatives of EKVE/AZRB/AZSB caused her significant mental distress by requesting an early entry for the construction of the EKVE Expressway without formally acquiring the land.

To protect her rights, she appointed surveyors to determine the boundaries of her land in April/May 2017. The survey plan was submitted to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and/or 5th defendant. It was accepted and certified by the 5th defendant and the relevant state authorities. The final title was issued to her. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

In June 2018, the land acquisition process was initiated by the State Authority, and on 17-10-2018, Pristine Power received the sum of RM11,210,235.70. Pristine Power, not being dissatisfied with the Award, referred the matter to the High Court under Section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. EKVE, also dissatisfied with the Award, likewise referred the matter to the High Court.

In accordance with the Judicial Review proceedings in Shah Alam High Court No. BA-25-58-09/2023, initiated by Christine Chin, the Selangor State Financial Officer, was mandated by a writ of mandamus to disburse the certified sum of RM13,734,727.77, along with judgment interest at a rate of 5% per annum from 16-6-2023 until full payment is made to Christine Chin. The payment of RM14,942,631.23 was made to Pristine Power on 21-3-2025.

The 1st to 3rd defendants' stance is that the land previously acquired was never declared as “Reserve Land” within the meaning of Section 5 of the National Land Code and also Section 62 of the National Land Code. Therefore, the State Authority had full ownership and control over the said land, which enabled it to alienate or re-alienate it to any person.

The 5th defendant denied acting negligently and/or breaching its statutory duties in approving the certified plan PA235704. Suit 23 68. The case in civil suit No: BA-21NCVC-23-05/2020 concerns the outcome of the earlier Suit 31, if allowed, against Pristine Power and S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw Christine Chin. Then, the State Authorities and/or the State Director should be ordered to indemnify Pristine Power and Christine Chin.

The Land Administrator, the State Authority, and/or the State Director are alleged to have breached their duty of care and acted negligently concerning the Land in dispute. Their negligent acts are alleged as follows:

69.1. failed, neglecting to make a memorial on the register document of title for the land that was subject to the 1995 acquisition, as specified in the last column of the Schedule to Form K dated 31-7-1995, which has been acquired.

69.2. failed and/or neglected to ensure that the part of the Land that has not been acquired was re-surveyed;

69.3. issued the title in continuation of the part retained by Arthur without re-surveying the portion of the Land that has not been acquired;

69.4. failed and or neglected to insert the memorials, endorsements, and other entries as contained in or should have been contained in the existing register of title S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw when the title in continuation was issued after the 1995 acquisition;

69.5. failed and/or neglected to keep and maintain an accurate and correct register in the records of Lands in its office, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor.

It is Pristine Power’s position that all the aforementioned will lead to Pristine Power incurring losses if Suit 31 is allowed by the Court. Therefore, Pristine Power seeks the following reliefs:

70.1. loss of the acquired land calculated at the true and fair value as at the date of judgment;

70.2. diminution in the value of the land and the double-storey villa erected on it;

70.3. cost of demolition, removal, construction, relocation and such other costs connected to and/or caused by the loss of the acquired

70.4. loss of amenities;

70.5. cost of accommodation and/or rental of a suitable accommodation; and S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

70.6. costs of litigating the legal proceedings as pleaded in Part D of the statement of claim dated 1-5-2020.

The State Authority and/or the State Director is allegedly vicariously liable to Pristine Power for the acts and/or omissions of the Land Administrator concerning the 1995 land acquisition process.

Pristine Power and/or Christine Chin are said not to be liable for the pre-computation plan prepared by Syarikat Ikhlas.

The defendants assert that, at all relevant times, they meticulously discharged their statutory responsibilities and did not partake in negligent behavior. A counter-claim has been filed; however, the defendant elected not to pursue it, for reasons best known to them. This counter-claim remained inactive before this Court, ultimately leading to its dismissal without an order as to costs upon the conclusion of the case. Issues to be Tried

Whether 23.52 poles (approximately 0.0595 hectares, or 0.147 acres, or 595 square metres) of land held by Arthur Anselem De Selva under Roll of Approved Applications No.2/60, which was previously acquired by the State Authority for the “Jalan Lingkaran Tengah II - Kuala Lumpur, Pakej 6” (MRR2 Package 6) in 1994/1995 (Acquired Land), was subsequently included in the Final Title held under Lot 126868, PN11290, Mukim Bandar Ulu Kelang, S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw Daerah Gombak, Selangor Darul Ehsan (Final Title), registered in the name of the 6th defendant.

Whether the 6th defendant’s Final Title is defeasible in law.

Whether the 6th and 7th defendants committed fraud in this cause of action in Suit 31.

Whether the 6th and 7th defendants' conduct prevented EKVE from entering the acquired Land to construct the elevated U-turn ramp for Package 3 of the EKVE project

Whether the plaintiff possesses the locus standi to initiate this action, as the 6th and 7th defendants assert that the plaintiff lacks such locus standi.

Whether the 1st to 3rd defendants acted negligently and/or breached their statutory duties in issuing the Final Title to the 6th defendant.

Whether the 1st to 3rd defendants committed the tort of causing loss by unlawful means against the Plaintiff.

Whether the State Authority and/or the State Director, as the principal of and/or employer of the Land Administrator, is bound to indemnify Pristine Power and/or Christine Chin for the following reasons: S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

81.1. The Land Administrator, the State Authority, and/or the State Director owe a duty of care to Pristine Power and Christine Chin under common law and/or through statutory laws.

81.2. The Land Administrator has breached the common law and/or statutory duties.

81.3. The Land Administrator’s breach of duty will cause Pristine Power to suffer losses in the event EKVE succeeds in its cause of action in Suit 31;

81.4. The State Authority and/or the State Director is vicariously liable to Pristine Power for the conduct of the Land

Regarding the first issue under Suit 31, it is the position held by the 1st to 3rd defendants and the 6th to 7th defendants that the acquired land was never declared as a Federal Road Reserve pursuant to Section 62 of the National Land Code. They further argued that, since the MRR2 Project was not built on the Acquired Land, it is incorrect for EKVE to adopt the position that the Acquired Land is part of the federal road reserve of the MRR2 Project pursuant to the Federal Roads Act 1959 and the 2004 order.

A clear distinction was drawn between a Federal Road and a Federal Road Reserve. Section 3 of the Federal Roads Act 1959 S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw (Act 376) was cited. The defendants also argued that Section 62 of the National Land Code must be followed for a road reserve to be designated as a Federal Road Reserve.

The defendants argued that there is no evidence before this Court indicating that the Acquired Land was specifically declared or gazetted as a Federal Road Reserve. Therefore, the land is not vested in the Federal Government and cannot be utilised for the EKVE Project without being acquired. It can be alienated to a third party by the State Authority, as it belongs to the State Authority following the 1995 land acquisition.

Article 83(1) of the Federal Constitution, Article 83(5) of the Federal Constitution, and further complemented by Article 83(7) of the Federal Constitution establish the fundamental principles regarding the utilisation of land for Federal purposes.

I find from the facts of the case before me that the Acquired Land has previously been declared in the Selangor State Government Gazette as required for the purpose of the “Jalan Lingkaran Tengah II-Kuala Lumpur, Pakej 6.” It was also included in the land acquisition plan submitted by the Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia and marked as “Tanah Hakmilik Yang Perlu Diambil” in item 5 of the legend, as opposed to item 9 of the legend, which is “Tanah Kerajaan Yang Perlu Dipohon.” (refer to Encl. 137/B1/3).

Section 62 applies exclusively to State Land and does not apply to alienated land. Therefore, upon the compulsory acquisition of the land by the State Authority for the purpose of the MRR2 Package 6, S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw it is not necessary for the State Authority to reserve the Acquired Land for a public purpose under Section 62 of the National Land Code.

Given that the Acquired Land has been declared as Federal pursuant to the Federal Roads Act of 1950 and the 2004 order, I find no grounds to rule that only the road should be declared as Federal, rather than the entire right of way that formed the basis of acquisition in 1995/1996.

This is further supported by the Kementerian Kerja Raya’s letter dated 20-3-2017, which expresses its interest in the Acquired Land and even requests a Registrar’s Caveat to be lodged by the Administrator of Gombak District.

There is no evidence before this Court that the Acquired Land was excluded from the right of way of the MRR2 Project when it was gazetted as a Federal Road.

The 6th and 7th defendants contended that the particulars of the 1995 acquisition were not endorsed on PT1175; consequently, Beverly Heights lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the 1995 acquisition.

The argument presented is that when land held under a qualified title is surrendered for realienation, the State Authority must refer to the certified plan to establish the boundaries of the land for surrender and realienation, as boundaries of land held under a qualified title only indicate the approximate area of registered land. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw The State Authority was said to have alienated the Acquired Land to Beverly Heights, as it was State land and was not gazetted as a Federal Road Reserve. Beverly Heights' reliance on PA24465, which measured about 6.675 acres, prepared prior to the 1994/1995 MRR2 acquisition in the process of preparing its pre-computation plans, planning permission, and layout plans, was approved by the State Authority without any objections.

This is the basis upon which the 6th and 7th defendants argue that the State Authority has consistently acknowledged that the 6.37- acre land, including the acquired land, is part of Beverly Heights’

I find this argument untenable for a simple reason, it is illogical for Beverly Heights to have relied on PA24465, approved long ago in 1963, about 38 years before the registration of its qualified title, PT1175, despite knowing there is a significant difference of 0.629 acres, 0.254 hectares, or 2,544m2 between the qualified title and

Beverly Heights licensed surveyor, DW4, testified in Court that he was not provided with the title deed. He also failed to investigate the 11.3% discrepancy between PT1175 and his site plan. Furthermore, he did not make any enquiries with JUPEM. Considering all these facts, I rule that DW4 was not acting prudently in carrying out his job scope, and his lackadaisical conduct resulted in the wrongful inclusion of the Acquired Land into Beverly Heights' title. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

The correct certified plan is PA107794, which reflects the removal of the Acquired Land from PT1175. I rule that a belief held by Beverly Heights, based on the conduct of the state authorities that PA24465 is the only applicable plan, does not at any time render the wrongful inclusion of the Acquired Land in Beverly Heights' qualified title lawful. Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak, Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Bangunan Seri Perak Darul Ridzuan, Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab, 30000 Ipoh, Perak v Wong Sew Ling & Ors [2025] 5 CLJ 846 is referenced.

The evidence presented by DW3, the former director of JUPEM who, in fact, was the individual responsible for approving PA107794, testified that DW4 should have awaited the preparation of the new certified plan and ought to have made relevant inquiries to JUPEM regarding any ongoing survey activities concerning

Regarding the 6th and 7th defendants' claim that the Acquired Land was re-alienated to Beverly Heights under Section 204B of the National Land Code, this cannot be accepted based on the following facts and laws:

98.1. Section 204B of the National Land Code does not allow a registered proprietor to be alienated of more land than is reflected in its title.

98.2. The Acquired Land cannot be alienated again because it has already been gazetted S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw as a Federal Road pursuant to the 2004 order.

98.3. The State Authority does not have the power to realienate the land to Beverly Heights, as Beverly Heights has submitted an application to surrender and realienate 5.997 acres of land held under PT1175. The absence of a realienation factor was confirmed by the evidence of DW1, who verified it.

98.4. The conduct of the state authorities in realienating the Acquired Land amounts to acting against the prevailing provisions of law under the National Land Code at that period, and therefore their act is ultra vires.

Moving on, it is the submission by the 6th and 7th defendants that Beverly Heights and Pristine Power have an indefeasible title to the Acquired Land based on the following facts:

99.1. The land was acquired with valuable consideration, in good faith, resulting in them as bona fide purchasers for value, Section 340(3) of the National Land Code applies. The relevant case law referred to is the Federal Court case of Pushpaleela a/p R. Selvarajah & Anor v Rajamani d/o S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw Meyappa Chettiar and other appeals [2019] 3 CLJ 441;

99.2. Applying the principles enunciated in the case above and the Court of Appeal case Bitara Angkasa Sdn Bhd v Cheok Lam Chuan & Ors [2024] 1 MLJ 541, the 6th and 7th defendants take the position as follows.

99.3. After the 1995 acquisition, the pre-subdivision land was transferred by Arthur Anselem De Silva to Melaniaga.

99.4. Beverly Heights then purchased the pre-subdivision land from Melaniaga on 13-11- 2003;

99.5. Beverly Heights was a bona fide purchaser for good value as it paid a valuable consideration of RM4,964,184.70 to

99.6. When a land search was conducted by its solicitors on the pre-subdivision land, it did not show any record for the 1995 acquisition. Neither was there an indication of the original title number AA/2/60 on PT1175; S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

99.7. Pristine Power paid RM1,140.720.00 to purchase part of PT1175 measuring 3,532.52 meters/38,023 square feet;

99.8. It was informed by the 3rd defendant to Beverly Heights that the quit rent in the sum of RM1,092.00 be paid in respect of the 1st lot contained in PT1175, referring to Pristine Power’s lot;

99.9. The pre-computation plan attached to the sale and purchase agreement shows that the land sold to Pristine Power is approximately 3532.52 square metres.

The Apex Court in Malaysia has consistently stated that the statutory protection provided under Section 340(3) of the National Land Code applies to subsequent purchasers, not to the immediate purchasers. Additionally, if an individual acquires title or interest in land through defective or invalid instruments, fraudulent means, or forgery, that person cannot rely on the proviso of Section 340(3) of the National Land Code. The relevant case laws are Tan Ying Hong v Tan Siang San & Ors [2010] 2 MLJ 1, Kamaraulzaman bin Omar & Ors v Yakub bin Husin & Ors [2014] 2 MLJ 768 and See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye & Anor v United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd and another appeal [2021] 5 MLJ 759.

Based on the rulings of our Apex Court and the facts of this case, I conclude that the concept of a bona fide purchaser for value does S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw not apply to Pristine Power, as it is the immediate purchaser of PT4501 from Beverly Heights.

When Beverly Heights purchased PT1175 from Melaniaga, Melaniaga’s qualified title covered approximately 5.997 acres, from which the Acquired Land was correctly excluded. It was the same title held by Beverly Heights prior to the subdivision.

It was only when Beverly Heights submitted its pre-computation plans and application for surrender and re-alienation of PT 1175 that the plans incorrectly included the Acquired Land. Subsequently, Beverly Heights sold the subdivided qualified title PT4501, which encompassed the Acquired Land, to Pristine Power. The undisputed fact is that Christine Chin was a director of Beverly Heights. She signed Beverly Heights’s pre-computation plans and its application to surrender and re-alienate PT1175.

Therefore, it is plainly impossible for Christine Chin, as the director of Beverly Heights, to be unaware that Beverly Heights' qualified title PT1175 was 5.997 acres, especially when compared to a larger portion of land obtained after the process of surrender and re-alienation.

I also find that Beverly Heights does not hold a valid title to the land it acquired, as Section 204B of the National Land Code prevents a registered proprietor from obtaining more land than is specified on their title. The legal maxim nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what they do not have) applies to these facts. These facts were confirmed by both DW1 and DW6. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

There is also no evidence before this Court that the Acquired Land was alienated to Beverly Heights pursuant to Chapter 2 of Part Eleven of the National Land Code or Chapter 3 of Part Five of the National Land Code.

I find that Beverly Heights does not hold a valid title to the Acquired Land for the reasons above, which invokes the exception under Section 340(2)(C) of the National Land Code. This makes the qualified title under PT4501 held by Pristine Power defeasible according to Section 340(2)(b) of the National Land Code.

Regarding the issue of fraud under Section 340 of the National Land Code, the 6th and 7th defendants contend that a claim for fraud involves dishonesty, a deliberate act of the mind, rather than merely constructive knowledge. In other words, it should be actual fraud, involving dishonest conduct by the person committing the act. The relevant case in issue is the Federal Court decision in Datuk Joginder Singh & Ors v Tara Rajaratnam [1983] 2 MLJ 196.

Beverly Heights is alleged to have had no knowledge of the 1995 acquisition at any significant time because no details of the acquisition were endorsed on PT1175 when Beverly Heights purchased it. Furthermore, DW5, one of the directors of Beverly Heights, testified in Court that reliance was placed on the expertise of the professionals hired to prepare the plans for PT1175. The only plan available from JUPEM was plan No. 24465. Plan No. 107794, which showed an area of 2.447 hectares, was approved by JUPEM S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw on 28-2-2008. By that time, the pre-computation plan for Beverly Heights had already been prepared.

The 6th and 7th defendants contend that mere notification, such as when EKVE’s officers properly informed Christine Chin that the land had previously been acquired by the Government, is insufficient and does not constitute fraud. The relevant cases cited include Tai Lee Finance Co Sdn Bhd v Official Assignee & Ors [1983] 1 MLJ 81, Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2022] 1 MLJ 701, and Yap Lai Yoke v Chin Fook Wah & another case [1984] 2 CLJ 282. It is the genuine understanding of Christine Chin that, from a letter dated 18 January 2017, in which JKPTG informed LLM that the 1995 acquisition was not endorsed on the new title, the Acquired Land was therefore included in her final title, as it had already been incorporated into the qualified title of PT1175.

She further reiterates that she replied to the letter, stating that Pristine Power was mistakenly copied on it, as it concerned a previous land acquisition that did not involve her land but was related to land in the MRR2 Project. She apparently never received a reply to her letter. This further reinforced her belief that the Acquired Land was included in Pristine Power’s title.

The 6th and 7th defendants also argue that they are not liable for disclosing issues related to the 1995 acquisition. Christine Chin merely relied on the expertise of PW1. PW1 is also alleged to have failed to highlight the discrepancies she observed between Plan 107794 and the qualified title in favour of the 6th defendant. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

The clear fact before this Court is that Christine Chin was aware of the land dispute from 25-10-2016, when EKVE officials approached her and informed her that Pristine Power had encroached on government land. She was aware of the Borang K issued for the Acquired Land in 1995 and that the Acquired Land was included in her land title from JKPTG.

What was Christine Chin’s response to the above? NOTHING. She chose to rely on her qualified title held under PT4501 and claimed that Pristine Power is the legal owner of the Acquired Land. Her truth is “the truth is in the title.”

Upon analysing the facts of this case before me, I conclude that Christine Chin clearly had no intention at any material time to discover the truth that was evident to her at all times. This is self-explanatory because she failed to inform PW1 of the ongoing dispute and the facts surrounding it, which are necessary to uncover the truth. PW1, without sufficient input from Christine Chin and Pristine Power, treated the survey as a routine job scope. The landmark decision of the House of Lords in Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 is referred to. Lord Herschell held that a statement made recklessly, careless whether it be true or false, and irrespective of the person’s motive, is sufficient to prove fraud. As for the meaning of "dishonesty," the Privy Council case of Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2AC 378 is cited. In that case, it was held, “if a person knowingly appropriates another’s property, he or she will not escape a finding of dishonesty simply because he or she sees nothing wrong in such behaviour.” The Federal Court S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw case of Pekan Nenas Industries Sdn Bhd v Chang Ching Chuen & Ors [1998] 1MLJ 465 is also cited.

This precisely matches what occurred in the case before this Court. Despite clear factual disputes that were evident to her, Christine Chin chose not to seek the truth and instead aimed to secure the final title for PT4501, fearing that the truth might not favour her. Had she exercised caution and informed PW1 of the ongoing factual disputes, the entire situation could have been different, and she might have been able to preserve the land as it was rightfully meant to be, reflecting its correct size. The assertion made by the 6th and 7th defendants that EKVE’s claim of fraud is merely an afterthought is unfounded.

I find that the 6th and 7th defendants acted dishonestly and fraudulently in maintaining an interest in a land considerably larger than they were legitimately entitled to, and in hurriedly pursuing the final title to secure indefeasible ownership over it.

The 6th and 7th defendants argue that their actions did not prevent EKVE from entering the land to construct the elevated U-turn ramp for Package 3 of the EKVE project. Throughout the relevant period, Form K has not been issued following the acquisition process due to EKVE’S decision not to pay the compensation sum. Therefore, there is no legal obligation on the part of the 6th and 7th defendants to surrender the Acquired Land.

It was further argued that the elevated U-turn is a business decision and EKVE, the Ministry of Works, and/or LLM should bear the costs, S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw given that EKVE chose to acquire the land in 2016 despite Christine Chin’s appeal to ARZB, the plaintiff’s holding company, to realign or redesign the highway to avoid acquiring the land.

I agree with EKVE’s submission that there was no obligation on EKVE to make any payment for the land previously acquired for the MRR2 Project. That is why I did not allow EKVE's indemnity prayer in paragraph 10 of the reliefs sought, as it is legally unfounded for land that has been acquired for a previous project and for which compensation has already been paid to be re-acquired and compensation paid again. Taxpayers’ funds should not be squandered because of negligent and or fraudulent and or dishonest actions by anyone, whether government officials or individuals, attempting to unlawfully profit from a situation.

The testimony of PW3 further supports the view that EKVE’s stance was that, as the land had been acquired for the MRR2 Project and payment had been made by the Kementerian Kerja Raya, it was not legally obliged to make any payment. EKVE also found encumbrances, including a concrete fence and part of a tennis court, built on the Acquired Land. The landowner, Christine Chin, disapproved of anyone entering her property, which prevented EKVE from proceeding with works in accordance with the approved design plan by LLM.

This Court also concurs with EKVE’s contention that the realignment was a challenging undertaking, contrary to the claims of the 6th and 7th defendants. It encompassed intricate engineering and technical modifications, necessitating approval from regulatory authorities and resulting in substantial additional expenses. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

It is also observed that at no material time did EKVE choose to acquire the said land. It acted solely based on the LLM’s instructions to prepare the land acquisition plans. Therefore, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply, especially when the act itself is ultra vires, acting against the clear provisions of the country's current statutory laws. The relevant case is United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd v Syarikat Perumahan Luas Sdn Bhd (No2) [1988] 3 MLJ 352, which was held as follows: “ ….. the doctrine of estoppel accordingly fails since there cannot be an estoppel to evade the plain provisions of a statute.”

I allowed EKVE’s additional expenses resulting from the realignment of Ramp 1, as it had taken all necessary steps to mitigate the significant delays and losses caused by the 6th and 7th defendants. PW4’s expert evidence, which was unrebutted by any of the defendants, was accepted by this Court (refer to Encl 242 to 283). The amount allowed is RM9,842,676.68. The relevant case concerning unopposed expert evidence is the Court of Appeal case of Majuikan Sdn Bhd v Barclays Bank Pic [2015] 1 MLJ 171, where the High Court case of PB Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Samudra (M) Sdn Bhd [2009] 7 MLJ 681 was cited with approval.

I reject Christine Chin’s claim that she was unable to engage experts for a rebuttal report due to financial constraints, and that engineers generally did not wish to antagonise EKVE, LLM, or the Government of Malaysia. This claim is unfounded and without basis. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

The 6th and 7th defendants further submitted that EKVE lacks the locus standi to initiate this action to challenge Pristine Power’s final title for the said land on the following reasons:

126.1. EKVE’S interest in the Acquired Land is not a right in rem recognised by the National

126.2. EKVE’s rights and interests as the concessionaire of the project are derived from the terms and conditions set out in the Concession Agreement dated 13-2-2013, between EKVE and the Government of Malaysia. Therefore, EKVE does not hold any registrable interest recognised under the National Land Code. EKVE functions as a highway concessionaire, which, in simple terms, is a contractor contracted by the Government of Malaysia that does not possess the authority to interfere with the Government’s land acquisition processes for its projects.

126.3. Accordingly, the land acquisition process has been completed, and the Government disbursed RM14,942,631.23 to Pristine Power on 21-3-2025. The fact that EKVE is obliged to bear land costs exceeding S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw RM360 million under the Concession Agreement does not grant EKVE standing to initiate this action against the 6th and 7th defendants.

126.4. Assuming EKVE’s allegations against the 6th and 7th defendants are true against the procurement of the final title, the proper party to file a cause of action should be the State Authority and not EKVE.

126.5. It is also the 6th and 7th defendants' position that its final title is conclusive evidence via PA235704 by virtue of Section 396 of the National Land Code. And reliefs sought by EKVE are prohibited under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1950.

126.6. EKVE incurred no losses, and its claim is therefore premature.

The argument by the 6th and 7th defendants that EKVE’s action is unsustainable is not relevant to the case before this Court. This is because the issuance of the final title to the 6th and 7th defendants results from tortious acts and/or omissions by the defendants, which caused EKVE to incur delays and additional costs in relation to Package 3. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

I completely agree with EKVE’s position that the Concession Agreement does not preclude EKVE’s legal rights to pursue remedies for tortious acts committed by the defendants against it. Since EKVE bears ultimate responsibility for land costs exceeding RM360 million, this indicates that EKVE’s remedy is not restricted to the provisions of the Concession Agreement, as argued by the 6th and 7th defendants. The fact that Pristine Power chose to include EKVE in the earlier judicial review proceedings, initiated by Pristine Power to challenge the validity of the land acquisition and the Minister of Works’ decision to reduce the minimum setback, demonstrates that EKVE has a genuine interest and is not merely a “busybody with no legitimate complaint,” as described in the Supreme Court case of Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1998] 2 MLJ 12.

The argument by the 6th and 7th defendants that the proper litigant is the State Authority, as the legal and statutory acquirer under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and not EKVE, is untenable. This is because, even though the State Authority is the legal and statutory acquirer under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, it does not prevent EKVE from initiating action for declaratory relief.

Although the 1st to 3rd defendants do not admit negligence or breach of statutory duty on their part, this does not mean that EKVE is barred from initiating legal action against them and challenging the validity of the final title issued by these defendants. The issuance of the final title indeed triggered the subsequent reacquisition of the disputed land, which directly affected EKVE’s liability in terms of additional costs to be borne by EKVE. The entire S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw issue revolves around Pristine Power’s claim to the Acquired Land, which reinforces EKVE’s locus standi to bring this particular cause of action.

The fact that EKVE’s cause of action was struck out against PW1 does not mean there was no error in PA235704, nor does it absolve the 6th and 7th defendants from liability for the fraudulent conduct of acquiring more land than they were legally entitled to.

According to Section 396(2) of the National Land Code, PA107794 shall serve as conclusive evidence of the boundaries of PT1175. The State Authority had no right to reallocate land that is not part of PT1175 to Beverly Heights under Section 204B of the National Land Code.

Furthermore, Rule 3 of the Selangor Land Rules 2003 clearly states that the Land Administrator must immediately reject any application for land if the land has been acquired for a Government agency under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The submission by the 6th and 7th defendants that EKVE’s relief is prohibited by Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 is not applicable to this case before this Court because EKVE is not seeking a mandatory injunction. The relief sought is in line with Section 417 of the National Land Code and Section 396A of the National Land Code.

It is unreasonable for the 6th and 7th defendants to persistently contend that EKVE has no personal interest in this cause of action, S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw particularly given that EKVE has demonstrated to this Court how its legal interest is impacted by the defendants' wrongful conduct in pursuing and issuing the final title. The pertinent case is Tan Sri Haji Othman Saat v Mohamed bin Ismail [1982] 2 MLJ 177.

Regarding the assertion that EKVE's claim is premature and that no loss has been incurred, it must be emphasised that EKVE’s claims and losses extend beyond the compensation awarded to the plaintiff. They also include the damages suffered by EKVE due to the delayed completion of Package 3 and the realignment of the elevated U-turn ramp, which was undertaken to mitigate the delay caused by the defendants' conduct.

Considering all the above, I find that EKVE has the locus standi to bring this action against the defendants.

The arguments of the 1st to 3rd defendants reflect the same issues raised by the 6th and 7th defendants, except for the simple claim that the 1st to 3rd defendants acted diligently and appropriately in fulfilling their duties.

Upon the perusal of the entire evidence and facts adduced before this Court, I find that the Land Administrator, District of Gombak and the Registrar of Titles had negligently committed a breach of statutory duty by issuing the final title to Pristine Power which included the previously acquired land that has vested in the State Authority and declared Federal by reason of Section 3 of the Federal Roads Act 1959. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

They remained constantly aware of the “pertindihan,” referencing EKVE’s letter dated 22-12-2016, JKPTG Selangor’s letter to LLM dated 18-1-2017, which was also copied to the Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Gombak, and the Kementerian Kerja Raya’s letter dated 20- 3-2017. The relevant cases are Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Poh Yang Hong [2016] 9 CLJ 297, and Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor & Ors v Shaifulizam bin Mohd Salleh & Anor and another appeal [2020] 5 MLJ 1.

During the land enquiry, Encik Mohd Wardi’s statement indicates that the 1st to 3rd defendants knew the Acquired Land included in the final title was previously acquired in 1994/1995.

Kementerian Kerja Raya, on behalf of the Government of Malaysia, objected to the reacquisition of the acquired land and sought to have the Acquired Land excluded from PT4501. Nevertheless, the Land Administrator, District of Gombak, and the Registrar of Titles ignored this request and proceeded to convert the qualified title into a final title that included the previously Acquired Land. There has been a failure to comply with Sections 380 and 419 of the National Land Code on their part.

The 3rd defendant, the State Director of Land and Mines for Selangor, is also liable in accordance with Section 12(3)(d) of the National Land Code.

I agree with EKVE’s submission that the 1st to 3rd defendants have misinterpreted Section 68A of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw Section 68A clearly states that once land has been acquired under this Act, the acquisition remains valid regardless of any subsequent disposal, use, or dealings by the State Authority. This interpretation was confirmed by DW1 during cross-examination. This is especially relevant in this case, where the Acquired Land was declared to be Federal under Section 3 of the Federal Roads Act 1959 and the 2004 order. DW1 also confirmed that the 2004 order applies to the Acquired Land, based on the 1st to 3rd defendants’ statement of defence. Relevant cases include Beta Tegap Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perbandaran Sepang; Peguam Negara Malaysia (Intervener) [2014] 4 CLJ 551, and Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd v Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya [2016] 9 CLJ 238.

Based on the above, I find that the 1st to 3rd defendants caused EKVE losses through their negligent and tortious conduct, which justifies an award of RM9,842,676.68 to EKVE and the declaratory relief sought.

Suit 23 The defendants assert that, at all relevant times, they carefully fulfilled their statutory duties and did not engage in negligent behaviour. A counter-claim has been filed; however, the defendant chose not to pursue it, for reasons best known to them. This counter-claim remained inactive before this Court, ultimately leading to its dismissal without an order as to costs upon the conclusion of the case.

It is important to note that, although the defendants' counterclaim alleged that Pristine Power submitted "dengan pengetahuan S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw membuat kenyataan palsu kepada Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri semasa mengemukakan pelan pra-hitungan dan permohonan kebenaran merancang kepada ...", this claim was not raised before this Court.

The Land Administrator, the State Authority, and/or the State Director have a duty of care towards Pristine Power and Christine Chin under common law and/or statutory provisions, for the following reasons:

148.1. the endorsements on AA2/60 do not exempt the defendants from their fiduciary duties towards Arthur Anselem De Silva and his successors in title, including Pristine Power, to perform as follows:

148.1.1. pursuant to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the failure of the Land Administrator to memorialise the 1995 acquisition constitutes a breach of the said section.

148.1.2. pursuant to Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, to re-survey the part of the land that was not acquired. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

148.1.3. pursuant to Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, to issue a title in continuation of the part of land retained by the proprietor where the land has been re-surveyed.

148.1.4. In accordance with Section 170(2)(c) of the National Land Code, insert the same memorials, endorsements, and other entries as are included in or should have been included in the current register of the title when the subsequent title was issued following the 1995 acquisition.

I agree with the plaintiff’s assertion that all the duties mentioned above are mandatory, as demonstrated by the use of the word “shall” in the respective provisions of law under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and the National Land Code.

The Land Administrator has a common law duty of care to ensure that the records held within the land office accurately reflect true and correct registrations. Furthermore, the Land Administrator must S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw adhere to the procedures outlined in the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and the National Land Code. The relevant case is Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Poh Yang Hong [2016] 6 MLJ 413.

This Court acknowledges the submission by the plaintiff that the “register of the document of title” differs from a “roll of approved application”. The reason is that, although the “roll of approved application” is not defined under the National Land Code, it is relevant to consider Clause 55 and Section 383(1) of the National Land Code to understand how the “roll of approved application” differs from a register document of the title. Therefore, it is crucial that the endorsements are carried out to ensure continuity of notice to all concerned regarding the land.

I also find the State Authority and the State Director vicariously liable for the Land Administrator's acts and omissions, as mentioned above.

I allowed prayer for general damages to be assessed solely with regard to paragraphs 30.1 to 30.5 in the statement of claim, interest and costs.

Conclusion Based on the analysis of the facts and law, this is a suitable case for the plaintiff's claims in both Suit 31 and Suit 23 to be allowed, as detailed above.

The 5th defendant did not appeal against the decision of this Court. S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw

The 1st to 3rd defendants failed to present their counterclaim in Suit 23 before this Court, which resulted in its dismissal without an order as to costs. Dated: 10th March 2026 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Selangor Date of Decision: 23rd January 2026 Counsels: For the Plaintiff : Alan Adrian Gomez, Micheal Yap Chih Hong & Haikaldin Mahyidin [Messrs Tommy Thomas] For the 2nd - 4th Defendants: Siti Radziah binti Kamarudin, Assistant State Legal Advisor [Chambers of Selangor State Legal Advisor] S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw For the 5th Defendant : Noerazlim binti Saidil Senior Federal Counsel [Chambers of Selangor State Legal Advisor] For the 6th & 7th Defendants: Raymond Ma, Denise Phang & Kirthika Padmanapan, [Messrs Mah Weng Kwai & Associates] S/N aZ3zqocwkESAYOqouPxydw