KL CITY GATEWAY SDN. BHD. (Dikenali sebelum ini sebagaRITZY GLOSS SDN BHD v 1. ) Md Shafie Bin Dikir (WA-24NCvC-2539-07/2024)

(D) 123545, PT 50022, H.S. (D) 123555, PT 50023, H.S. (D) 123546, PT 50024, H.S.

(D) 123540, PT 50025, H.S. (D) 123533, PT 50026, H.S. (D) 123534, PT 50027, H.S.

(D) 123535, PT 50028, H.S. (D) 123536, PT 50029, H.S. (D) 123537, PT 50030, H.S.

(D) 123538, PT 50031, H.S. (D) 123547, PT 50032, H.S. (D) 123541, PT 50033, H.S.

(D) 123556, PT 50034, H.S. (D) 123542, PT 50035, H.S. (D) 123543, PT 50036, H.S.

(D) 123544, PT 50037, H.S. (D) 123548, PT 19/05/2025 11:55:23 WA-24NCvC-2539-07/2024 Kand. 51 S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-24NCvC-2539-07/2024 50038, H.S. (D) 123549, PT 50039, H.S.

(D) 123550, PT 50040, H.S. (D) 123551, PT 50041, H.S. (D) 123552, PT 50042, dan H.S.

(D) 123554, PT 50044 yang kesemuanya di Seksyen 41, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (“Hartanah-Hartanah tersebut”); Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Projek Pembangunan Semula Kampung Sungai Baru, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur; Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 7 dan 8 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950; Dan Dalan Perkara Mengenai Seksyen Seksyen 28(4)(a) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956; Dan S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 417 Kanun Tanah Negara (Disemak 2020); Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai Aturan 92, Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai Bidang Kuasa Sedia ada Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya. ANTARA KL CITY GATEWAY SDN. BHD (Dikenali sebelum ini sebagai Ritzy Gloss Sdn Bhd) (No. Syarikat: 200501021436 (703566-H) ...PEMOHON DAN

MD SHAFIE BIN DIKIR (No. K/P: 550124-10-6277)

ROHANI BINTI DIKIR (No. K/P: 580706-10-5300)

GHAZALI BIN DIKIR (No. K/P: 610125-10-6529) S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-24NCvC-2539-07/2024 4. SHARIL BIN DIKIR (No. K/P: 630426-10-7507)

MUHAMAD ISKANDAR BIN DIKIR (No. K/P: 700617-10-5927)

NORJANI BINTI DIKIR (No. K/P: 640831-10-7454)

NORZAIDAH BINTI DIKIR (No. K/P: 660608-10-6596)

NOR ZAIDAH BINTI DIKIR (No. K/P: 660608-10-6596)

9.

No. K/P: 560705-10-5562) ROBIAH BINTI DIKIR (No. K/P: 680601-10-6110)

ASLINA BINTI DIKIR (No. K/P: 720510-14-5150)

NURUL NADIRAH BINTI MALIK (No. K/P: 861218-56-5704)

NUR FARIHIN BINTI NORAZAM (No. K/P: 900210-14-6328)

HASNAERDAWATY BINTI MD HANAPI (No. K/P: 790728-14-5878)

HASNAFIDAH BINTI MD HANAPI (No. K/P: 711106-02-5128)

HASNAFIZAM BINTI MD HANAPI (No. K/P: 751203-02-5126)

HASNAFIZI BIN MD HANAPI (No. K/P: 740123-02-5077)

WAN HASMAH BINTI MOHD SHARIFF S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w (No. K/P: 500114-03-5182)

ABDUL AHAD BIN ABU BAKAR (No. K/P: 631208-10-7327)

MUHAMAD ASYRAF BIN RUSLI (No. K/P: 930726-10-6287)

MAIMUNAH BINTI ALIAS (No. K/P: 540128-10-5774)

AZLI BIN KAMARUDIN (No. K/P: 820518-01-5981)

MOHD NOOR BIN MAJID (No. K/P: 580820-10-6139)

MOHAMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN MOHD NOOR (No. K/P: 910105-14-5373)

MOHAMAD HELMI BIN MOHD NOOR (No. K/P: 930117-14-5897)

SAIFUL AZHAR BIN IBRAHIM (No. K/P: 720107-10-6119)

SAIFUL AZMIR BIN IBRAHIM (No. K/P: 770419-14-5745)

SAIFUL AZRIL BIN IBRAHIM (No. K/P: 741114-14-5215)

AHMAD JASEH BIN NGAH LEBAR @ HAJI MOHAMAD JABBAR (No. K/P: 0672307)

MOHAMED ALIPAH BIN AHMAD JASEH (No. K/P: 520825-08-5467)

NUR FARHANAH IZZATI BINTI YAAZIZ (No. K/P: 931130-01-6488)

RAHIZA BINTI MISBAH S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w (No. K/P: 940731-10-5974)

NORIZAN BINTI JAMALUDIN (No. K/P: 570816-07-5190)

MUHAMAD FARIS BIN MUHAMAD FASRI (No. K/P: 860330-14-5203)

NUR FATIMAH SUHADA BINTI ALI (No. K/P: 950818-01-5014)

SITI RAUDZAH BINTI MUHAMMAD (No. K/P: 820710-14-5268)

SITI UMIAH BINTI ABDULLAH (No. K/P: 900116-11-5656)

ZAIFULAL RIZAL BIN MOHIDIN (No. K/P: 860421-06-5049)

EFFENDY BIN AHMAT MAIN (No. K/P: 670514-10-6359)

MAZIZA BINTI AHMAD ARMAIN (No. K/P: 610105-10-6548)

ZURAIDAH BINTI AHMAT MAIN (No. K/P: 711220-10-6554)

ESAH BT BRAHIM (No. K/P: 330105-04-5080)

NORLIZA BINTI KALIL (No. K/P: 760522-14-5082)

ROSLAN BIN SALMAN (No. K/P: 651004-07-5659)

IBRAHIM BIN ALIAS (No. K/P: 550903-10-6401)

AZIAH BINTI SAMAT (No. K/P: 660102-03-7060) S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w

NOORAZIMAH BINTI MOHAMAD HASHIM (No. K/P: 780720-10-5012)

ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN SUNARI (No. K/P: 900708-14-5023)

MUHAMMAD LUQMANUL HAKIM BIN MAZLAN (No. K/P: 940630-11-5073)

FARIDAH BINTI ABD HAMID (No. K/P: 630109-10-5882)

ROZAIDI BIN YUSOF (No. K/P: 760623-06-5081)

MOHD KHAIRIL NAIM BIN HUSIN (No. K/P: 901023-04-5155)

MAT SOM BIN CHE SOM (No. K/P: 560319-03-5295)

RAHIMAH BINTI CHE SOH (No. K/P: 521008-03-5448)

WAN NORMASTURA BINTI ABDULLAH (No. K/P: 810411-14-5330)

FARAH NADIAH BINTI MOHAMMED ASRIN (No. K/P: 880607-10-5158)

MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH ZUBAIR BIN MOHAMMED ASRIN (No. K/P: 900330-10-5117)

MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ZAID BIN MOHAMMED ASRIN (No. K/P: 910920-10-5773)

FARAH NABILA BINTI MOHAMMED ASRIN (No. K/P: 940624-10-6226)

FATIMAH BINTI SAARANI (No. K/P: 650912-10-5070) S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w

MUHAMMAD ASHAARI BIN AZIZ (No. K/P: 851117-10-6163)

SALWANA BINTI AZIZ (No. K/P: 870524-43-5136)

MUHAMMAD ASYRAF BIN AZIZ (No. K/P: 880927-56-5305)

MUHAMMAD SUHAIMI BIN AZIZ (No. K/P: 910405-14-6781)

MUHAMMAD FAKRUL IZZAT BIN AZIZ (No. K/P: 940527-14-5119)

FATIN SOLEHAH BINTI AZIZ (No. K/P: 980618-14-5380)

NURFARAHANIE BINTI MAHDI (No. K/P: 970601-13-6470)

ZAINAB BINTI ALIAS (No. K/P: 600205-10-6132)

SUPIAH BINTI ALIAS (No. K/P: 680625-14-5202)

SITI KHADIJAH BINTI IBRAHIM (No. K/P: 840115-14-5536)

PUTERI NURUL JEHAN BINTI JAIMIN (No. K/P: 860718-38-5684)

NURUL NADIA BINTI HASNOL (No. K/P: 880405-04-5476)

NOR HUSNA BINTI MOHD ZUKI (No. K/P: 861225-43-6484)

SUHANA BINTI REDZWAN (No. K/P: 830223-14-5024)

HERI BIN PUDIRIN S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w (No. K/P: 920504-14-6145)

No. K/P: 231215-10-5159) BAHARIN BIN SAWAL (No. K/P: 661103-10-6261)

SHAMSUDDIN BIN SAWAL (No. K/P: 620226-10-6201)

ASARI BIN SAWAL (No. K/P: 560417-10-5883)

SHARRIF BIN SAWAN (No. K/P: 490429-10-5345)

BAHRUM BIN SAWAL (No. K/P: 520615-10-5845)

BOHARI BIN SAWAL (No. K/P: 500823-10-5665)

HASNAH BINTI SAWAL (No. K/P: 580129-10-5748)

SITI KHADIJAH BINTI SAWAL (No. K/P: 540525-10-5356)

ASIAH BINTI SAWAL (No. K/P: 471209-10-5702)

HAKIMAH BINTI SAWAL (No. K/P: 640116-10-8052)

RAHIM BIN SATAR (No. K/P: 630709-04-5801)

MOHD ZANI @ MOHD SOFI BIN HARUN (No. K/P: 670618-03-5911)

SUKARUMAN BIN PRAYA KASA (No. K/P: 191113-71-5219) S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w

YUSOP BIN SUKARUMAN (No. K/P: 640921-10-7263)

JUNARDAH BINTI SUKARUMAN (No. K/P: 530108-10-6092)

SUPARI BIN SUKARUMAN (No. K/P: 541025-10-5821)

NORAINI BINTI SUKARUMAN (No. K/P: 630725-10-7048)

SAMSURI BIN SUKARUMAN (No. K/P: 670819-10-6149)

NORSIAH BINTI SUKARUMAN (No. K/P: 600523-10-6170)

AMIDA BINTI SUKARUMAN (No. K/P: 571222-10-5502)

SULAIMAN BIN SIHAB (No. K/P: 370710-10-5543)

HAJJAH SITI ALIAH BINTI HAJI SULAIMAN (No. K/P: 731228-14-5206)

RAHMAH BINTI SUTAN (No. K/P: 270526-10-5094)

SHAMSHURA BINTI ROSLI (No. K/P: 550414-10-6072)

HABSAH BINTI SAMDIN (No. K/P: 460811-10-5306)

KAMSINAR BINTI ROSELI (No. K/P: 520629-10-5440)

RADEN SUYITNO BIN R SUWARDI (No. K/P: 641201-10-7729)

R SUFARTO BIN R SUWARDI S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w (No. K/P: 490830-10-5069)

RADEN SUTRISNO BIN RADEN SUMADI (No. K/P: 450815-10-5355)

TIMAH BINTI ABBAS (No. K/P: 411007-71-5030)

MUHAMMAD RAZALI BIN ABDUL KHADIM (No. K/P: 740307-71-5259)

SADIAH BT DOLLAH (No. K/P: 270722-71-5244)

AHMAD FARIDZ BIN HOD (No. K/P: 751130-14-5265)

MOKHTAR BIN TAKRIM (No. K/P: 420304-10-5153)

MOHD YASIN BIN TAKRIM (No. K/P: 490603-10-5499)

ABD.RAHMAN BIN TAKRIM (No. K/P: 570413-10-5543)

RASEMAH BINTI TAKRIM (No. K/P: 390125-10-5460)

AMID BIN TAKZIM (No. K/P: 520110-10-5567)

ABDUL KHALID BIN A M ABDUL RASHID (No. K/P: 620522-05-5007)

SYUFIAH ISMAIL (No. K/P: 940928-14-7238) S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w

MOKHTAR BIN MOHD LIP (No. K/P: 520425-01-5523)

SAEDA BINTI MOKHTAR (No. K/P: 891121-14-5348)

MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN

NORSIAH BINTI ABU SAID (No. K/P: 680124-04-5254)

SUWAIBAH BINTI ROMLI (No. K/P: 820915-03-5564)

SITI ROSNANI BINTI SALEH (No. K/P: 621001-10-6942)

KAMARIAH BT MASUD (No. K/P: 501206-10-5496)

SHAMSIYAH BT MASUD (No. K/P: 630425-10-5964)

MELDAGUSYENI BINTI MURNI (No. K/P: 920810-14-6274)

HERMAN BIN PUDIRIN (No. K/P: 920504-14-6137)

MUHAMMAD NASRUL AZRI BIN KAMARUDIN (No. K/P: 851106-14-5001)

KUDARI BIN DOLLAH (No. K/P: 380428-04-5013)

LELE SUZANA BINTI KUDARI (No. K/P: 690527-10-6620)

KASSIM @MOHAMAD ASIB BIN HAJI MOKHSIN (No. K/P: 290727-71-5479)

RIDZUAN BIN MOHD ASIB @ KASSIM S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w (No. K/P: 610220-10-6607)

NORHAYATI BINTI ABD. HAMID (No. K/P: 530423-05-5176)

MUHAMMAD SHAFEI BIN MOHD NOOR (No. K/P: 940825-14-6865)

ROSLIANA BINTI MOHD NOOR (No. K/P: 921005-14-5548)

RUSMANI BINTI HJ AHMAD (No. K/P: 3305434)

RUSMAINI BINTI ABDUL TALIB (No. K/P: 560408-10-5996)

ROKIAH BINTI TALIB (No. K/P: 630331-10-7184)

NUR IMAN NATASYA BINTI ZAMANI (No. K/P: 950522-14-7288)

FATIMAH BINTI KHALID (No. K/P: 630503-10-7448)

ROHANA BINTI KHALID (No. K/P: 720815-14-5506)

MUHAMMUDDIN BIN SAIRI (No. K/P: 631225-10-7417)

HARTINI BINTI SAIRI (No. K/P: 661223-10-6258)

ABDUL RAHMAN BIN RASHID (No. K/P: 731204-13-5433)

MUHAMMAD FIRHAN BIN ASHARI (No. K/P: 930309-11-5043)

MUHAMMAD MUJAHID BIN AZHARI (No. K/P: 901229-08-6219) S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w

NOR FARHANA BINTI MUHAMMAD DON (No. K/P: 900630-14-5444)

AMIROL BIN MOHD HASHIM (No. K/P: 800828-14-5775)

NORAYA BINTI PANDAK SOHOR (No. K/P: 470212-08-5840)

RAHMAT BIN MOHD HASHIM (No. K/P: 690428-08-5959)

SHAHARUDIN BIN MOHD HASHIM (No. K/P: 720304-14-5379)

ZALINA BINTI MOHAMAD HASHIM (No. K/P: 661005-08-5540)

SITI ROZAH BINTI SALAMUDIN (No. K/P: 891201-14-5372)

NOR AZAHAM BIN ZAHARI (No. K/P: 921219-06-5607)

SITI AISHAH BINTI MAT YUSUP (No. K/P: 810420-14-5834)

NUR ASYIKIN BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN (No. K/P: 941213-14-6316)

IBRAHIM BIN MUHAMAD (No. K/P: 610205-10-6043)

SUKARNO BIN SAIRI (No. K/P: 700626-10-5793)

ANUAR BIN ISHAK (No. K/P: 681010-04-5007)

SIAH BINTI TALIB (No. K/P: 3303101)

ROHANI BIN MD SUENG S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w (No. K/P: 490602-10-5745)

LUQMAN NURHAKIM BIN HASSAN (No. K/P: 880201-14-5379)

SUKRI BIN KARTHO (No. K/P: 610327-10-5401)

SELAMET BIN KARTHO (No. K/P: 700511-10-5603)

SAMAD BIN KARTO (No. K/P: 570322-10-5601)

MOHAMED YUSOFF BIN KARTHO (No. K/P: 590126-10-5557)

SATINAH BT KARTHO (No. K/P: 540629-10-5326)

JUMIAH BINTI KARTHO (No. K/P: 650402-10-6778)

SAPARI BIN KARTHO (No. K/P: 630110-10-6989)

AINAA SYAZANA BINTI SAPARI (No. K/P: 981030-56-5338)

NAJATUL SYAHIRAH BINTI SAPARI (No. K/P: 930524-14-5376)

SUPARTI (No. K/P: 740812-61-5048)

MUHAMMAD AZRI SYAFI'IE BIN SAPARI (No. K/P: 960618-14-6393)

AIDDA SYAMILA BINTI SAPARI (No. K/P: 090209-14-0568)

AIRAA SYAFIRAH BINTI SAPARI (No. K/P: 040429-14-0302) S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w

TIAP-TIAP ORANG LAIN YANG MENDUDUKI HARTANAH-HARTANAH TERSEBUT …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Can a registered proprietor of land apply under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 to evict occupiers of land who had received payment of compensation pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1960? This is the primary issue that arises for determination in this case. [2] After considering the submissions and authorities, I decided that the Applicant, which is the registered proprietor of 26 lots of land, may apply under Order 89 to evict those occupiers – for they are indeed persons who are remaining in occupation of the land without the registered proprietor’s licence or consent, or that of its predecessor-in-title. After finding that the Applicant had satisfied all the conditions to invoke Order 89 and that there is no triable issue, this Court allowed the Applicant’s application with nominal costs to be paid by the Respondents. My reasons are as explained below. Background Facts [3] The Applicant is a private limited company duly incorporated in Malaysia and is the registered proprietor of 26 lots of land held under:

H.S. (D) 123530, PT 50018;

H.S. (D) 123531, PT 50019; S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w

H.S. (D) 123532, PT 50020;

H.S. (D) 123539, PT 50021;

H.S. (D) 123545, PT 50022;

H.S. (D) 123555, PT 50023;

H.S. (D) 123546, PT 50024;

H.S. (D) 123540, PT 50025;

H.S. (D) 123533, PT 50026;

H.S. (D) 123534, PT 50027;

H.S. (D) 123535, PT 50028;

H.S. (D) 123536, PT 50029;

H.S. (D) 123537, PT 50030;

H.S. (D) 123538, PT 50031;

H.S. (D) 123547, PT 50032;

H.S. (D) 123541, PT 50033;

H.S. (D) 123556, PT 50034;

H.S. (D) 123542, PT 50035;

H.S. (D) 123543, PT 50036;

H.S. (D) 123544, PT 50037;

H.S. (D) 123548, PT 50038;

H.S. (D) 123549, PT 50039;

H.S. (D) 123550, PT 50040;

H.S. (D) 123551, PT 50041;

H.S. (D) 123552, PT 50042; and

H.S. (D) 123554, PT 50044, all of which are within Section 41, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, District of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Applicant’s Land"). S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w [4] There are 179 respondents (should have been named as “Defendants”) in this action. In the intitulement, the names of 178 respondents are stated. The 179th Respondent is stated as: “TIAP-TIAP ORANG LAIN YANG MENDUDUKI HARTANAH-HARTANAH TERSEBUT”. [5] Only 23 out of the 178 respondents have appointed solicitors to oppose the Applicant’s application before this Court. They are the 6th, 21st, 30th, 33rd, 40th, 42nd, 44th, 45th, 68th, 74th, 77th, 119th, 126th, 128th, 132nd, 136th, 140th, 143rd, 145th, 146th, 154th, 161st, and 166th Respondent. These 23 respondents are occupying 17 out of the 26 lots of the Applicant’s Land. The Applicant’s Position [6] In his supporting affidavit, the Applicant’s director averred that sometime in year 2016, the Applicant was invited by Persatuan Pemilik Hartanah Kampung Sungai Baru (“PPHKSB”) to redevelop properties located in Kampung Sungai Baru, Kuala Lumpur, in line with an urban renewal policy announced by the Ministry of Federal Territories, through Perbadanan Perkampungan Kampong Baru (“PPKB”). [7] The redevelopment project (“the Project”) is to redevelop the land on which 64 old terrace houses and 264 dilapidated flats stand. Proposals were made for those property owners to enter into a joint venture agreement (“the Joint Venture Agreement”) whereby the owners and/or beneficiaries of the Estate of deceased owners, would vacate their respective unit and authorise the Applicant to redevelop the land. In consideration thereof, they would receive, inter alia, new S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w apartments with essential facilities and infrastructure, as well as monetary compensation. [8] Apparently, the owners of 27 out of the 64 terrace houses and 192 out of the 264 flats signed the Joint Venture Agreement. The Applicant further averred that since the majority support the Project, the Government decided to approve the Project. It was decided that the Land Acquisition Act 1960 would be used to acquire those units belonging to owners who declined to enter into the Joint Venture Agreement, by paying them compensation based on market price – in compliance with the said Act. [9] The Applicant had fully paid compensation to the owners of 37 terrace houses and 72 flats, i.e. those who declined to enter into the Joint Venture Agreement. The compensation paid was pursuant to the Notices of Awards (Form H) issued by the Land Administrator under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. [10] It was further averred that the land acquisition proceedings had been fully completed, with the payment of compensation to the owners of houses and flats acquired, the issuance of Form K for the Land Administrator to take formal possession and the issuance of 26 new titles to the Applicant – to alienate the land under 26 lots as the registered proprietor. [11] Since only 23 respondents herein are contesting the Applicant’s application, the details of the respective payment that they received are set out in the Applicant’s supporting affidavit. S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w [12] The Applicant’s stand is straightforward; having performed their part of the Joint Venture Agreement, paid full compensation as awarded by the Land Administrator and being issued with new land titles, the Applicant expects to be able to proceed with the Project to redevelop the Applicant’s Land without any trouble or delay. [13] On Order 89, learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that it is applicable because rule 1 makes it applicable as against “a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation without his licence or consent”. Counsel submitted that emphasis must be given to the words “or remained in occupation” and not just to the words “who entered into”. [14] In support of his submissions, several authorities were cited. I shall refer to them below in my analysis of the facts and law. The Respondents’ Position [15] There was only one affidavit filed by the 23 respondents to resist the Applicant’s application. It was affirmed by one Zainab binti Alias, who is the 68th Respondent. The essence of her affidavit was summarised into 4 points in para 25 thereof. First, she was advised that Order 89 is not applicable because the Respondents are not trespassers. Secondly, the issue of compensation is still not concluded, allegedly pending at the High Court. Thirdly, she avers that they reserve the “rights” to challenge the legality of the land acquisition. Lastly, she avers that sufficient time ought to be given to the Respondents to vacate the Applicant’s Land. S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w [16] Learned counsel who appeared for 23 out of 179 respondents submitted on only the first point in their counsel’s written submissions, i.e. the applicability of Order 89 in this case. Their point is simply that Order 89 is the correct mode to be instituted only against persons who are “squatters simpliciter” who had gained occupation of the land without adequate licence, and not against the Respondents who are occupiers whose land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. [17] Several authorities were cited by learned counsel for the 23 respondents, namely, Che Omar bin Wahab v Embon binti Shafie & Ors [2019] CLJU 1666, Bohari Taib & Ors v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 48, Shaheen Abu Bakar v Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (1999) 1 CLJ 74 and Bukit Arena Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seng & Yang Lain [2020] CLJU 1528. Analysis of the Facts and Law [18] First, even though an applicant under Order 89 ought to have been named as “Plaintiff” (see O.89 r.3(1)) while a respondent as “Defendant”, I find that the misnomer in the intitulement of the Originating Summons – in using “Applicant” and “Respondents” – is a technical non-compliance under Order 1A. I had thereby proceeded to hear the merits of the case without requiring any amendment to be made to the intitulement. [19] A careful reading of Order 89 rule 1 shows that the persons who may be cited as defendants (respondents) in an Order 89 application are those who had entered into or remained in S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w occupation without the proprietor’s licence or consent, or that of his predecessor in title. The said rule 1 reads: “Where a person claims possession of land which he alleges is occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation without his licence or consent or that of any predecessor in title of his, the proceedings may be brought by originating summons in accordance with the provisions of this Order.” (emphasis added) [20] The terms of Order 89 rule 1 are in fact quite clear, with the use of the word “or” in the phrase “who entered into or remained in occupation without his licence or consent”. This means that it is not applicable only to squatters who “entered into” the land without the registered proprietor’s consent. The only illegal occupiers expressly excluded from the application are “tenants or tenants holding over after the termination of tenancy”. On this point, the principle of statutory interpretation known in Latin as Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius is of assistance. A literal translation of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius is “The Expression of One Is the Exclusion of Another”. Thus, when this principle is applied to Order 89 rule 1, it means that since tenants (and tenants holding over) are expressly stated, other occupiers who are omitted from rule 1 are presumed to have been intentionally omitted. [21] The facts in Che Omar bin Wahab v Embon binti Shafie & Ors [2019] CLJU 1666 are obviously distinguishable from the present case. There, the learned High Court judge made a finding that there were documentary evidence exhibited in the Defendant’s S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w affidavit raising triable issues as to the capacity of the transferor to transfer title to the plaintiff there. The following passage is self-explanatory: “[16] The defendants’ averments together with the supporting documentary exhibits (paragraph 8 is referred) shows that the defendants had lawfully entered the land with Ismail’s permission. The defendants have also raised triable issues, the most significant being Haslinda’s capacity to pass a good title to the plaintiff.” [22] The judgment of the Supreme Court in Bohari Taib & Ors v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991]1 MLJ 343 is not about action against occupiers of land that had been legally acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. It clearly shows that a triable issue existed in that case because there was documentary evidence of the Selangor State Executive Council, acting under the National Land Code 1965, having approved the alienation of the subject land to the appellants and the other selected settlers. This triable issue is highlighted in the judgment of Mohamed Azmi SCJ in Bohari Taib (supra): “There is some evidence by affidavit and documentary exhibits to show that on or about 4 September 1980, the Selangor State Executive Council, no doubt acting under the National Land Code 1965, had approved the alienation of the said land to the appellants and the other selected settlers, and on 1 November 1980, one Dato' Haji Kamarulzaman bin Haji Ahmad, the then member of the State Executive Council, had personally confirmed the approval and assured them that they would be given titles to the said land. … S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w The approval of the state authority as exhibited by the appellants, would appear to have been made on 4 September 1980, according to the letter of the Collector of Sabak Bernam dated 25 October.” [23] In Shaheen Abu Bakar v Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (1999) 1 CLJ 74, it was highlighted by the Federal Court that since the subject land had been transferred to another company, i.e. Punca Alam, PKNS ceased to have the right to claim possession of the same. The following passage from the judgment of Zakaria Yatim FCJ made the above point of locus standi crystal clear: “Once the said land was transferred to Punca Alam, PKNS could no longer claim possession of the said land. In our view, this is a triable issue. The Court of Appeal said that the learned judge was entirely right in holding that PKNS and Punca Alam had the necessary standing. In our view, the question of whether PKNS had the locus standi to file the O 89 application against Shaheen in the circumstances of the present case is a triable issue. On this ground alone, the appeal ought to be allowed.” [24] Finally, the judgment of the High Court in Bukit Arena Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seng & Yang Lain [2020] CLJU 1528 is also not about occupiers who had received compensation. The Plaintiff’s application under order 89 was allowed. The final paragraph of the judgment provides guidance that this Court ought to ‘peel’ (kupas) through the facts to determine the true facts: “[49] Kesimpulannya, berdasarkan kepada kesemua yang telah dikupas di atas, mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa sememangnya Defendan Pertama, Ketiga dan Ketujuh merupakan penceroboh dan/atau setinggan yang berada di atas Tanah-Tanah tersebut S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w secara haram. Defendan Pertama, Ketiga dan Ketujuh dalam kes ini telah gagal untuk membangkitkan sebarang isu-isu untuk dibicarakan. Maka, Defendan Pertama, Ketiga dan Ketujuh tidak mempunyai hak dalam undang-undang mahupun dalam ekuiti untuk terus berada di atas Tanah-Tanah tersebut.” [25] By reason of the above analysis, it is my judgment that Order 89 is applicable against occupiers who are remaining in occupation of land after having received compensation for their lands that had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. In other words, even though Order 89 is usually used to evict squatters, it is not restricted to only the eviction of squatters. I hold that the Applicant has rightly based its application under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, which contains distinct rules applicable specifically for the eviction of unlawful occupiers of land. [26] The next issues are on whether the Applicant has complied with the requirements of Order 89, and the law applicable to weigh applications under Order 89. [27] In this case, the Applicant (should have been named as “Plaintiff”) had complied with O.89 r.3(1) in having stated in its supporting affidavit:

its interest in the land;

the circumstances in which the land has been occupied without licence or consent and in which its claim to possession arises; and

that it does not know the name of any person occupying the land who is not named in the originating summons. S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w [28] In my judgment, “interest in the land” must necessarily refers to interest that can be registered or endorsed under the National Land Code (“the NLC”), and which would give rights to possession of land. Those persons with such rights under the NLC are: a registered proprietor, a lessee (under s.221), a sub-lessee (under s.222), a charge (under s.271) and a tenant whose tenancy exempt from registration had been duly endorsed under s.317. [29] In the present case, the Applicant has stated its interest as the registered proprietor of the Applicant’s Land, which is definitely an interest that satisfies O.89 r.3(1)(a) Rules of Court 2012. [30] As mentioned above, there are a total of 179 respondents in this action. In the intitulement, the names of 178 Respondents (should have been “Defendants”) are stated while the 179th Respondent is described as: “TIAP-TIAP ORANG LAIN YANG MENDUDUKI HARTANAH-HARTANAH TERSEBUT”. This is correct and is in fact required by Order 89. I take judicial notice that in the real world, it is often impossible to obtain the names and identification details of people who are unlawfully occupying land. A land owner who knocks on the doors of buildings erected (usually illegally) on his land and says: “This is my land, if you refuse to move out, you must tell me your name and IC number so that I can sue you”, is likely to receive an outburst of profanity, or worse, to be intimidated by the sight of a parang (our Malaysian version of a long machete). That is the reality, and which is why Order 89 is drafted as it is – to evict occupiers whose identity could not be ascertained as well as those whose identity are known to the land owner. S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w [31] Due to the inherent obstacle in identifying the occupiers, Form 8A – which is the mandatory format for Originating Summons under Order 89 – shows that unknown occupiers who are to be named as defendants may be collectively referred to as “every other person in occupation of” or in Malay as: “TIAP-TIAP ORANG LAIN YANG MENDUDUKI HARTANAH TERSEBUT”. [32] Order 89 Rule 3(1)(c) requires the Applicant to declare in the supporting affidavit that it does not know the name of those persons occupying the land who are not specifically named in the Originating Summons, while Rule2(1) requires a note to be included at the bottom of the Originating Summons (Form 8A) stating that any occupier, who is not specifically named as a defendant therein, may apply to the Court to be joined as co-defendant. This protects the rights of the occupiers to be heard under Order 89. The said Rule2(1) reads: “The originating summons shall be in Form 8A and an acknowledgement of service is not required. An originating summons filed under this Order shall include the following note at the end thereof: “Note: Any person occupying the premises who is not named as a defendant by this originating summons may apply to the Court personally or by solicitor to be joined as a defendant. If a person occupying the premises does not attend personally or by solicitor at the time and place abovementioned, such order will be made as the Court may think just and expedient.” S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w [33] Now, who are those Respondents, in particular those 23 respondents who have instructed solicitors to contest the Applicant’s application? From the evidence adduced in the affidavits, they are persons who had received compensation for the lawful acquisition of their terrace houses or flats located in the Project. As an example, the 68th Respondent (Zainab binti Alias) who affirmed the affidavit on behalf of the 23 respondents had received compensation of RM2,973,450.00. An excerpt from table shown at para 5 of the Applicant’s affidavit dated 4th October 2024 – which she had not denied – is self-explanatory: [34] Now, RM2,973,450.00 is no paltry sum. If the 68th Respondent is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, her remedy in law is well provided for under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. She is at liberty to accept the compensation “under protest” and to file an objection to seek a Land Reference at the High Court. From her averment in her said affidavit that the final amount of compensation has yet to be determined by the High Court, I surmise that she did file a land reference to seek higher compensation. With respect, it is trite that land reference proceedings do not operate as a stay against the Land Administrator taking possession of the acquired land. S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w [35] The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 are very clear about the Land Administrator’s power to take possession of land that has been acquired under the said Act. S.18 of the said Act empowers the Land Administrator to take possession, and in fact after Form H is issued, without having to wait until payment of compensation is made to the land owner. The following words of s.18 are clear: “The Land Administrator may take possession-

of any land in respect of which an award has been made under section 14, such possession being taken at the time of the service upon the occupier of such land of a notice in Form H, or at any time thereafter;” [36] Under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, formal possession of land is completed by the issuance and service of Form K, as provided in s.22(1) of the said Act: “The Land Administrator shall take formal possession of any scheduled land by serving upon the occupier thereof or, if he cannot be found, by posting thereon, a notice in Form K.” [37] In this case there is absolutely no doubt that Form K had been issued because the subsequent steps of extinguishing the old titles and alienating the land under 26 lots with 26 new titles to the Applicant as the registered proprietor had been completed – to fulfil the objective of the Project. [38] If any authority is required on the point that once land acquisition is completed, the title will vest in the State Authority, I would respectfully cite the Federal Court’s judgment in Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w [2021] 1 MLJ 180. There, the Federal Court explains that once the acquired land has been taken possession of, it vests in the State Authority, and there is no power to revert it back to the previous owner. The following passages are instructive: “[39] In our present case, not only that the lands have been taken possession of, by the state authority, it has already been vested in the state authority. Once the lands are vested with the state authority, there are no provisions in the LAA to revert the lands back to the owner. [44] … Therefore, applying the principle as set in the aforesaid cases to our present case, the State Authority, upon taking possession and the memorial endorsed in the register document of title after the issuance of Form K, the land shall vest with the State Authority as state land, free from encumbrances.” [39] In the present case, the irreversible nature of the acquisition is even clearer than in Orchard Circle (supra) because a further event had occurred after the lands had vested in the State Authority (in this case, the Federal Commissioner of Lands for the Federal Government as the lands are in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur). That event was the alienation of the subject land, under 26 lots with 26 new titles, to the Applicant – which granted the Applicant indefeasible titles. S.340(1) NLC confers indefeasibility with the following words: “The title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor of any land, or in whose name any lease, S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w charge or easement is for the time being registered, shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be indefeasible”. [40] The other two points raised in the 68th Respondent’s affidavit are, with respect, irrelevant to whether an order for possession ought to be issued in favour of the Applicant. Her averment about reserving the “rights” to challenge the legality of the land acquisition is a point for argument in a judicial review application (if any) to challenge the acquisition. In any event, unless there is an order setting aside the land acquisition, this point carries no weight. [41] As for the 68th Respondent’s averment that sufficient time ought to be given to the Respondents to vacate the Applicant’s Land, it is a point to be taken into consideration by this Court when deciding the deadline for possession to be given by the Respondents. In fact, Order 89 rule 6(3) specifically states that this Court has the power to specify the date. I read this discretionary power as enabling this Court to give the occupiers sufficient time to vacate; a power to be exercised judiciously taking into account all the facts of the case. In short, this point is just about time to vacate and does not serve to resist the Applicant’s substantive application. [42] The summary procedure under Order 89 – intended to enable an aggrieved plaintiff to obtain judgment speedily – is governed by the same principles as applications for summary judgment under Order 14. The Supreme Court in Chiu Wing Wa & Ors v. Ong Beng Cheng [1994] 1 CLJ 31 construed Order 89 to be suitable if and only if there is no triable issue regarding a respondent’s occupation of the S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w subject land. The comparison with Order 14 can be seen from the following passage of the judgment of the Supreme Court: “The summary procedure under O. 89 is governed by the same principles as those under O. 14 RHC 1980. To entitle a defendant to a trial, all he needs to do is to show that there is a triable issue of law or fact. It is only in clear cases of trespassing that a summary order can be made under O.89...” [43] Chiu Wing Wa (supra) is an authority that is binding on this court. Further, in my humble view, the whole scheme of our Rules of Court 2012 is that judgment may be issued summarily if there is not even a single triable issue requiring cross-examination of witnesses (see the wording of Order 14, Order 18 r.19 and Order 89) and/or if the issues in dispute are solely questions of law and/or construction of documents which authenticity are admitted (see the wording of Order 14A and Order 33). [44] From the above facts and analysis of the legitimacy of the land acquisition proceedings which had been concluded with the Respondents duly compensated, there is simply no triable issue for them to justify delaying delivery of vacant possession to the Applicant. As pointed out above, the 68th Respondent (Zainab binti Alias) who affirmed the affidavit on behalf of the 23 respondents had received RM2,973,450.00 as compensation. [45] The Land Acquisition Act 1960 would be rendered impotent if persons who have been duly compensated are to be allowed to delay the new registered proprietor’s claim for vacant possession of the subject land. Legally, the land title on which “the compensated S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w owner” relied on to claim proprietorship had ceased to exist after the Land Administrator has taken formal possession of the acquired land by issuing Form K and extinguishing the title (in Malay: dimansuhkan). Any compensated owner who remains in occupation of the land thereafter is occupying State land without licence or consent of the State Authority (the Federal Land Commissioner in this case because the land is located in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur). [46] The alienation of the land, with the issuance of new titles to the acquiring party (such as the Applicant in this case) turns a compensated owner’s position into that of an illegal occupier if he has remained in occupation without the new registered proprietor’s licence or consent (to quote the words of O.89 r.1) Conclusion [47] By reason of the facts and law set out above, I find, without an iota of doubt, that the Respondents are persons who are remaining in occupation of the Applicant’s Land without the consent or licence of the Applicant or its predecessor-in-title. I therefore find that there is no triable issue. The Applicant’s application ought to be allowed. [48] The Applicant had prayed for a period of 14 days to be fixed. As the Respondents would require adequate time to vacate the Applicant’s Land, I decided, pursuant to Order 89 rule 6(3), that a period of 60 days would be fair. Thus, I ordered that vacant possession is to be delivered within 60 days from today, and in the event of the Respondents failing to comply after 60 days, a Writ of Possession shall be issued and the Applicant may also proceed to S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w seek damages to be assessed. Lastly, costs of RM150 is ordered to be paid by each Respondent to the Applicant. Date of Decision: 28th February 2025. ……………………………..………………. Gan Techiong Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur (NCvC9) S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w Counsel for the Applicant: Ashmadi Bin Othman (Bushro Bin Mohamad Anuar with him) SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT: MESSRS ZULPADLI & EDHAM Advocates & Solicitors No. 24 Jalan Perumahan Gurney, 54000 KUALA LUMPUR. Counsel for the Respondents: Shahrin Satheer SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENTS: MESSRS SHAHRIN SATHEER KAMAL & CO. Advocates & Solicitors Suite No. 3-2, Jalan Set 3/1, Setia Eco Templer, Templer Park, 48000 RAWANG, SELANGOR S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w CASES REFERRED TO:

Che Omar bin Wahab v Embon binti Shafie & Ors [2019] CLJU

1666.

Bohari Taib & Ors v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991]1 MLJ 343.

Shaheen Abu Bakar v Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor

1 CLJ 74.

Bukit Arena Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seng & Yang Lain [2020] CLJU

1528.

Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd V Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors [2021] 1 Mlj 180.

Chiu Wing Wa & Ors V. Ong Beng Cheng [1994] 1 Clj 31. LEGISLATIONS REFERRED TO:

Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012. S/N zF6HyetCk0iNVbjAxhUh7w