NOR FADZILLAH BINTI AHMAD v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Temerloh (CB-15-9-03/2023)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAYSIA RUJUKAN TANAH NO: CB-15-9-03/2023 ANTARA NOR FADZILLAH BINTI AHMAD (NO. K/P: 540322-06-5358) … PERAYU DAN PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH TEMERLOH … RESPONDEN

Lampiran

Lampiran C, kecuali sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah ini. (2) Sekiranya terdapat percanggahan, kaedah di bawah undang-undang bertulis dalam Lampiran C hendaklah terpakai mengatasi Kaedah-Kaedah ini. (3) Apa-apa permohonan yang dimulakan di bawah mana-mana undang-undang bertulis, selain yang disenaraikan dalam Lampiran C, yang adalah melalui suatu cara selain saman pemula atau writ, hendaklah disifatkan sebagai telah dimulakan melalui saman pemula dan hendaklah dikendalikan dengan sewajarnya mengikut Kaedah-Kaedah ini.” S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ [7] Jadual Lampiran C KKM 2012 menyatakan seperti berikut: Lampiran C Senarai Undang-undang Yang Dikecualikan (1) No. (2) Prosiding (3) 1. Undang-Undang bertulis Prosiding kebankrapan 2. Akta Insolvensi 1967 [Akta 360] Prosiding yang berhubungan dengan penggulungan syarikat dan pengurangan modal 3. Akta Syarikat 2016 [Akta 777] Prosiding jenayah Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593] 4. Prosiding di bawah Akta Kesalahan Pilihan Raya 1954 Akta Kesalahan Pilihan 5. Raya 1954 [Akta 5] Prosiding hal ehwal suami isteri Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan 6. Perceraian) 1976 [Akta 164] Rujukan tanah 7. Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 [Akta 486] Penerimaan masuk ke Bar Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 [Akta 166] S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ Ordinan Peguam Bela Sabah [Sabah Bab. 2] Ordinan Peguam Bela Sarawak [Sarawak Bab. 110] 8. Prosiding di bawah Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 9. Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 [Akta 53] Prosiding di bawah Ordinan Pemegang Amanah (Perbadanan) 1951 Sabah Ordinan Pemegang Amanah (Perbadanan) 1951 Sabah [Bab. 148] 10. Prosiding di bawah Ordinan Probet dan Pentadbiran 1947 Sabah Ordinan Probet dan Pentadbiran 1947 Sabah [Bab. 109] 11. Prosiding di bawah Akta Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah 1976 Akta Cukai Keuntungan 12. Harta Tanah 1976 [Akta 169] Prosiding di bawah Akta Petroleum (Cukai Pendapatan) 1967 Akta Petroleum (Cukai 13. Pendapatan) 1967 [Akta 543] Prosiding di bawah Akta Institusi Kewangan Pembangunan 2002 Akta Institusi Kewangan 14. Pembangunan 2002 [Akta 618] Prosiding di bawah Akta Syarikat Amanah 1949 Akta Syarikat Amanah 1949 [Akta 100] S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ 15. Prosiding di bawah Akta (Larangan) Kumpulan Wang Kutu 1971 Akta (Larangan) Kumpulan Wang Kutu 1971 [Akta 28] [8] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu merujuk kepada seksyen 45 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 yang memberi ruang kepada penggunaan KKM 2012 dengan memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “45 Proceedings to be in open court (1) Every proceeding under this Part shall take place in open Court. (1A) The provisions of the Third Schedule shall apply to every proceeding under this Part. (1B) The Rules Committee appointed under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91] may amend the provisions of the Third Schedule relating to the procedure to be followed by the Court in all proceedings under this Act. (2) Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act.” S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ [9] Ini bermakna berdasarkan kepada peruntukan khusus di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 iaitu seksyen 45 dibaca bersama dengan A. 94 k 2 KKM 2012, peruntukan di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 perlu diutamakan daripada Lampiran C yang dinyatakan di atas. [10] Hubung kait di antara Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 dan Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 telah dijelaskan dengan menarik oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd & Anor And Other Appeals [2018] 4 CLJ 285 seperti berikut: “[31] We are of the view that s. 45(2) of the Act only provides for the complementary role of ROC 2012 to the Act if it does not run contrary to the provisions of the Act. Order 15 r. 6(2)(b) of ROC 2012 in the context of the present case does not have any application. On this point, we cite with approval the observation made by His Lordship KN Segara JCA in the case of Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd v. Inch Kenneth Kajang Rubber Ltd & Anor And Other Appeals [2011] 1 CLJ 95 as follows: In the overall scheme and context of the Land Acquisition Act, any application by the appellant under O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) RHC 1980 to be made a party, is inappropriate. It would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and an attempt to circumvent the clear and unambiguous provisions of the LAA 1960 as regards to the manner and circumstances in which 'persons interested' under the LAA 1960 are to participate in S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ proceedings either before the Land Administrator at an enquiry or, in court, upon a reference by the Land Administrator upon any objection to an Award. Filling of Form N is the most appropriate and the only mode available under the LAA 1960 to any person interested under the LAA 1960 to become a party in a Land Reference at the High Court relating to an objection to the amount of compensation.” [11] Ia turut dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 195 seperti berikut: “[77] What then is the position of the appellant who is not notified and directed by the High Court to appear at the reference proceedings. This is despite its interests being liberally disclosed by the land administrator in Form O. [78] In our view, this is where the Rules of Court 2012, by virtue of s. 45(2), apply: (2) Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. [79] This provision has remained unchanged through the years. In our opinion, bearing in mind the objective of Act 486, that it is to regulate the law on compulsory acquisition so as to ensure S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ compliance with art. 13 of the Federal Constitution, in particular, the incorporation of this provision indicates that Act 486 is non-exhaustive, that the Rules of Court 2012 may be resorted to so long as those rules are not inconsistent with anything contained in Act 486. [80] In the circumstances of the appellant, the application of the Rules of Court 2012 is not at all inconsistent with Act 486. On the contrary, it complements Act 486. [81]Order 15 r. 6 reads: Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties 6(1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter. (2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application: (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely: S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ (i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or (ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter, which in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter. [82] The respondent argued that ss. 37(1), 38, 43(c), 44(2) and 55 of the Act 486 expressly excludes the appellant who has accepted the award from participation at the reference proceedings.” [12] Begitu juga dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan berkenaan keterlibatahan pihak-pihak dalam suatu prosiding rujukan tanah yang meraikan hak di bawah Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Ini dinyatakan dalam kes Tegas Sejati Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Dan Daerah Hulu Langat & Anor And Another Appeal [2024] 4 CLJ 1 seperti berikut: “[24] We start our deliberations from art. 13(1) of the Federal Constitution. It guarantees that no person shall be deprived of S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ property save in accordance with law. In Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 195; [2022] 2 MLJ 721, where the principal issue was whether the legal proprietor of land which had been acquired was entitled to attend and participate in reference proceedings even though the compensation awarded had been accepted without protest, this court held that in relation to art. 13, "the reading and application of this guarantee, there must be a propensity to safeguard as opposed to denying that guarantee. Unless and until there are clear provisions restricting a right of participation in any exercise to deprive property, any relevant law must be read to allow if not encourage such participation. The adequacy of any compensation paid for the deprivation may otherwise be compromised".” [13] Ini bermakna dalam prosiding rujukan tanah peruntukan di dalam KKM 2012 boleh digunapakai sekiranya ia tidak bercanggah dengan Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. Apa yang jelas ialah ia seharusnya melibatkan perkara-perkara yang timbul semasa rujukan tanah. Misalnya berkenaan pihak yang sepatutnya diberikan pembayaran pampasan tersebut, jumlah pampasan dan keputusan terhadap rujukan tanah seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam seksyen 37 (1) dan seksyen 47 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. Seksyen 37 Akta tersebut telah menyatakan perkara-perkara yang boleh dirujuk kepada Mahkamah untuk keputusan bagi suatu pengambilan tanah yang menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ “37 Application to Court (1) Any person interested in any scheduled land who, pursuant to any notice under section 10 or 11 or any person interested pursuant to any compensation made under section 35 or Part VII who, has made a claim to the Land Administrator in due time and who has not accepted the Land Administrator's award thereon, or has accepted payment of the amount of such award under protest as to the sufficiency thereof, may, subject to this section, make objection to- (a) the measurement of the land; (b) the amount of the compensation; (c) the persons to whom it is payable; (d) the apportionment of the compensation. (2) Where the total amount awarded in compensation does not exceed five thousand ringgit, the written award of the Land Administrator shall be final with regard to both the measurement of the land and the amount of compensation awarded, and no objection may be made under subsection (1) in respect thereof. (3) Where the total amount of any award exceeds thirty thousand ringgit, any Government or any person or corporation on whose behalf such land was acquired or being occupied or used pursuant to Part VII, shall be deemed to be a person interested and may make objections on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1).” S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ [14] Sementara seksyen 47 Akta menyatakan seperti berikut: “47 Award to be in writing (1) Every decision made under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge and the assessors. (2) Where such decision comprises an award of compensation it shall specify- (a) the amount awarded on account of the market value of the land under paragraph 2(a) of the First Schedule; (b) the amount, if any, deducted under paragraph 2(b) of the First Schedule; (c) the amounts, if any, respectively awarded under paragraphs 2(c), (d) and (e) of the First Schedule; and (d) in respect of each such amount, the grounds for awarding or deducting the said amounts. (3) Every such written decision or award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of any such award a judgment within the meaning of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure.” Pada hemat Mahkamah ia meliputi perintah-perintah yang berkaitan dengan seksyen 36 dan seksyen 37 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ [15] Mahkamah ini juga meneliti had dan skop berkenaan dengan prosiding rujukan tanah di bawah Bahagian V Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 berkaitan dengan rujukan kepada Mahkamah. Ini telah dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 44 Akta seperti berikut: “44 Restriction on scope of proceedings (1) In every proceeding under this Part the scope of the inquiry shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. (2) The Court shall consider the interests of all persons interested who have not accepted the award, whether those persons have themselves made an objection or not.” Seksyen ini adalah penting dirujuk bagi mempertimbangkan sama ada permohonan ini boleh dibenarkan ataupun sebaliknya dengan melihat sama ada ia akan menjejaskan hak mana-mana pihak sekiranya permohonan pembatalan ini ditolak atau sebaliknya. Di samping itu Mahkamah juga perlu meneliti sama ada ianya akan memprejudiskan mana-mana pihak dalam pendengaran rujukan tanah kelak. [16] Apa yang jelas ialah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 telah menghadkan dan menyatakan garis panduan bagaimana rujukan tanah itu perlu dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah, apakah perkara-perkara yang boleh dikemukakan untuk rujukan dan prosedur untuk pengemukaan rujukan tanah iaitu pengemukaan Borang N dan S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ Borang O. Namun demikian sekiranya semasa prosiding rujukan tanah tersebut terdapat pihak-pihak yang mempunyai kepentingan yang tidak didengar semasa pengendalian pendengaran oleh Pentadbir Tanah maka ia boleh mengemukakan permohonan dan dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah untuk turut serta dalam prosiding rujukan tanah. Salah satu daripada cara yang boleh dikemukakan ialah dengan mengemukakan permohonan sebagai pencelah disebabkan tiadanya peruntukan secara khusus di dalam Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 berkenaan dengan tatacara mengemukakan permohonan pencelah maka Mahkamah menerima pakai tatacara pengemukakan permohonan pencelah seperti yang dinyatakan dalam KKM 2012. Inilah yang dinyatakan dalam kes Spicon Products Sdn Bhd (supra), Tegas Sejati Sdn Bhd (supra) dan Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd (supra). [17] Namun demikian dalam kes ini apa yang menarik ialah permohonan oleh pihak Responden untuk pihak ketiga dijadikan pihak dalam prosiding rujukan tanah ini dan pihak ketiga memohon supaya ianya dibatalkan. Penelitian kepada affidavit jawapan dan sokongan bagi KM 17 adalah didapati bahawa fakta bahawa pihak ketiga telah hadir di dalam prosiding pendengaran di hadapan Pentadbir Tanah Temerloh adalah tidak dapat dinafikan. Ini ditambah pula dengan rekod prosiding yang disediakan oleh Pentadbir Tanah Temerloh ia jelas menunjukkan kehadiran pihak ketiga dan award yang berkaitan telah diberikan. S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ [18] Namun demikian, pihak Perayu dalam kes ini telah menyatakan bahawa ketidakpuasan hati beliau terhadap award tersebut yang diberikan kepada pihak ketiga adalah tidak sewajarnya diberikan sedemikian jumlahnya. Ini adalah disebabkan pada pandangan Perayu dia sepatutnya mendapat jumlah yang lebih besar daripada pihak ketiga disebabkan dia adalah pemilik berdaftar sedangkan pihak ketiga adalah berkaitan dengan tanah tersebut ekoran daripada perjanjian usahasama yang telah dilakukan di antara Perayu dengan pihak ketiga. [19] Persoalannya ialah adakah kedudukan bahawa pihak ketiga mempunyai kaitan dalam kes ini disebabkan perjanjian usahasama dengan Perayu mewajarkan pihak ketiga dibawa masuk sebagai pihak di dalam prosiding rujukan tanah ini. [20] Bagi melihat persoalan ini Mahkamah perlu melihat kepada A. k 1 KKM 2012 yang memperuntukkan prosedur berkaitan dengan notis pihak ketiga seperti berikut: 1. Notis pihak ketiga (A. 16 k. 1) (1) Jika dalam apa-apa tindakan seorang defendan yang telah memasukkan kehadiran- (a) menuntut terhadap seseorang yang belum lagi menjadi pihak dalam tindakan itu apa-apa sumbangan atau tanggung rugi; S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ (b) menuntut terhadap mana-mana orang apa-apa relief atau remedi yang berhubungan dengan atau berkaitan dengan hal perkara asal bagi tindakan itu dan sebahagian besarnya sama dengan beberapa remedi atau relief yang dituntut oleh plaintif; atau (c) menghendaki bahawa apa-apa persoalan atau isu yang berhubungan dengan atau berkaitan dengan hal perkara asal bagi tindakan itu patut ditentukan bukan sahaja antara plaintif dan defendan tetapi juga antara salah seorang atau kedua-dua mereka dan seseorang yang belum lagi menjadi pihak dalam tindakan itu, maka, tertakluk kepada perenggan (2), defendan boleh mengeluarkan suatu notis dalam Borang 18 atau 19, mengikut mana yang sesuai (yang disebut sebagai "notis pihak ketiga" dalam Aturan ini), mengandungi suatu pernyataan jenis tuntutan yang dibuat terhadapnya dan, mengikut mana-mana yang berkenaan, sama ada tentang jenis dan alasan tuntutan yang dibuat olehnya atau tentang persoalan atau isu yang hendak ditentukan. (2) Seorang defendan dalam sesuatu tindakan tidak boleh mengeluarkan suatu notis pihak ketiga tanpa kebenaran Mahkamah melainkan jika dia mengeluarkan notis itu sebelum menyampaikan pembelaannya kepada plaintif. (3) Jika notis pihak ketiga disampaikan kepada orang yang terhadapnya notis itu dikeluarkan, dia hendaklah mulai dari masa S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ penyampaian itu menjadi pihak dalam tindakan itu (yang disebut sebagai "pihak ketiga" dalam Aturan ini), dengan hak yang sama berkenaan dengan pembelaannya terhadap apa-apa tuntutan yang dibuat terhadapnya dalam notis itu dan selainnya seolah-olah dia telah dibawa guaman dengan sewajarnya mengikut cara biasa oleh defendan yang mengeluarkan notis itu.” [21] Secara amnya notis kepada pihak ketiga akan timbul apabila Defendan mempunyai hak untuk memohon sumbangan (contribution) atau tanggung rugi (indemnity) daripada pihak ketiga setelah Defendan didapati bertanggungan kepada Plaintif. Ini telah dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam kes Mat Abu Bin Man v Medical Superintendent, General Hospital, Taiping, Perak & Ors [1989] 1 MLJ 226 di mana Mahkamah Agong menjelaskan berkenaan dengan hakikat A. 16 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 dan bilakah kausa tindakan akan bermula kepada pihak ketiga tersebut. “We also do not think that a proceeding under O 16 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 is intended to be treated in the same way as an action between a plaintiff and a defendant. Third-party proceedings for contribution should be regarded as independent of and separate from proceedings by a plaintiff against a defendant. When a defendant is made liable to the plaintiff, he then has his right open against a third party to establish that he possesses a right to contribution or indemnity from the S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ third party. Time should begin to run from the date the defendant is held liable.” [22] Ia juga disentuh oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Dato' Abul Hasan bin Mohamed Rashid v Multi-Code Electronics Industries & Anor [2012] 5 MLJ 176 seperti berikut: “[6] The third party proceedings must be viewed as independent proceedings between the second defendant as plaintiff and the six directors as defendants (Mat Abu bin Man v Medical Superintendent, General Hospital, Taiping, Perak & Ors [1989] 1 MLJ 226 (SC); and Chong Yew Kee & Anor v Wah-Chang International Corp Pte Ltd & Anor (New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd, third party) [1995] 1 SLR 153). The second defendant in filing the third party application for indemnity and contribution, has to satisfy the court that there is a question proper to be tried as to the liability of the six directors to provide indemnity and make a contribution, be it in whole or in part. To put it differently, the second defendant has to show a prima facie case.” [23] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu mengambil maklum bahawa apabila permohonan untuk notis pihak ketiga dikemukakan Mahkamah tidak akan merujuk kepada merit tindakan ataupun kesahihan tindakan bagi tanggung rugi tersebut. Ini telah dinyatakan dalam kes Edison And Swan United Electric Light Company v. Holland. [1886] 33 Ch.D. 497 seperti berikut: S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ “The policy of the law expressed in the rule is plain. If A. is suing B., and B. denies his right to sue, but says, "even if he is entitled to sue, C. has indemnified me; let him come here and fight his own battle, or help me to fight mine," the object of the rule of procedure is that there should be a discussion and a decision, once for all, of the real substance of the dispute. There is no doubt that the Defendants were clearly right in taking out this summons; and to go into the nature of the indemnity would be a most idle and absurd thing for me to do. The rule is sufficient; the rule is plain; it is a case where an indemnity has been given. To say that the rule cannot be resorted to because the indemnity was subsequent to the service of the writ is a mistake. Whatever change takes place in the rights of the original parties to an action may be set right either by amendment or by adding parties; and that is the constant practice of the Court. The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs endeavoured to tempt me into some discussion upon the merits; but I simply refused to have anything whatever to say to them. or to attend to the argument in that respect.” [24] Penelitian kepada permohonan ini adalah didapati bahawa Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 telah memperuntukan secara komprehensif tatacara pengemukaan rujukan dan bantahan terhadap keputusan Pentadbir Tanah. Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa peruntukan sedemikian adalah bagi menzahirkan hak perlembagaan berkenaan pemilikan harta seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan seperti berikut: S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ “13 Rights to property (1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law. (2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.” [25] Hasrat penggubalan Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah dijelaskan dengan menarik oleh Professor Emeritus Shad Saleem Faruqi dalam bukunya Our Constitution Sweet & Maxwell 2019 di halaman 168 seperti berikut: “Article 13: The drafters of the Merdeka Constitution sought to ensure that private property is protected but that social claims may, when necessary, trump individual claims.” [26] Dalam kes ini adalah didapati bahawa pihak ketiga telah terlibat sama dalam prosiding di hadapan Pentadbir Tanah. Award juga telah diberikan kepada pihak ketiga tersebut. Pihak ketiga tidak memfailkan apa-apa rujukan ke Mahkamah di bawah Borang N. Ini bermaksud bahawa pihak ketiga tidak mempunyai apa-apa bantahan kepada perintah award daripada Pentadbir Tanah. Apa yang penting difahami ialah prosiding pihak ketiga bukan bermaksud untuk memastikan kehadiran sesuatu pihak. Sebelum prosiding pihak ketiga itu dapat dibenarkan harus ditunjukkan bahawa pihak Responden atau Defendan mempunyai sumbangan dan tanggungan rugi daripada pihak yang ingin S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ dinamakan sebagai pihak ketiga tersebut. Keterangan yang diteliti daripada affidavit yang dikemukakan tidak dapat menunjukkan bahawa Responden mempunyai tuntutan sumbangan atau tanggung rugi daripada pihak ketiga. Ini adalah disebabkan Responden adalah pihak yang perlu membuat pembayaran kepada Perayu di atas pengambilan tanah tersebut. Ianya tidak akan menyebabkan Responden boleh mendapatkan sumbangan bayaran pampasan tersebut daripada pihak ketiga atau meminta pihak ketiga menanggung rugi bayaran pampasan yang perlu dibuat oleh Responden. Oleh itu asas untuk Rezeki Alamdwi Sdn Bhd untuk dijadikan pihak ketiga tidak dapat ditunjukkan oleh Responden. [27] Dalam kes ini pihak ketiga yang dicadangkan itu tidak mempertikaikan dan telah menggugurkan haknya untuk mempertikaikan pampasan yang berkenaan. Oleh yang demikian ketidakhadiran pihak ketiga tidak boleh dijadikan asas untuk membolehkan dia dijadikan pihak ketiga. Jika ini dilakukan tanpa dapat ditunjukkan bahawa Responden mempunyai sumbangan atau tanggung rugi daripada pihak ketiga ia adalah satu tindakan di luar daripada KKM 2012. [28] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga memberi perhatian kepada kemungkinan semasa pendengaran rujukan tanah nanti Mahkamah akan membuat perubahan kepada jumlah pampasan yang diberikan dan ia akan melibatkan Rezeki Alamdwi Sdn Bhd. Ini mungkin akan menimbulkan kesulitan kepada pihak Responden. Dalam hal ini Mahkamah ingin merujuk kepada seksyen 31 Akta Pengambilan Tanah S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ 1960 yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut bagi maksud untuk mengatasi masalah kesilapan dalam pembayaran: “31 Payment in error, etc. “Any person who may have received the whole or any part of any compensation awarded for an interest in any scheduled land or under Part VII either in error or before it has been established that another person is rightfully entitled to such interest shall be liable, on demand by the Land Administrator, to refund the amount received or to pay it to the person entitled thereto within three months or such longer period as the Land Administrator may specify in his demand.” [29] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Sri Seltra Sdn Bhd v. Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia & Anor [2022] 9 CLJ 359 telah memberikan panduan yang menarik berkenaan apakah yang akan berlaku sekiranya terdapat keputusan Mahkamah yang mendengar rujukan tanah merubah pampasan yang diberikan. Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan seperti berikut: “[51] Therefore, adequate compensation simply means that the affected landowners, whose land have been compulsorily acquired for public purposes, receive compensation that is no more or no less than the loss resulting from the compulsory acquisition of their land. There is nothing in the LAA that limits the amount of adequate compensation to be given to the affected landowner. As such, s. 29A cannot be interpreted to narrow art. S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ 13(2) of the Federal Constitution on adequate compensation or to limit the powers of the courts to grant adequate compensation. … [59] On 6 February 2020, the learned JC had reduced the award by RM73,940,025.28. After deducting the 25% that had been withheld, the issue now is whether the Excess Sum of RM13,863,754.45 and/or interest thereon be refunded by the appellant to the first respondent. [60] We are of the considered opinion that the learned JC has the jurisdiction to order the refund of the excess sum of RM13,863,754.45 and/or interest to the first respondent under s. 31 of the LAA, which reads: 31. Payment in error, etc. Any person who may have received the whole or any part of any compensation awarded for an interest in any scheduled land or under Part VII either in error or before it has been established that another person is rightfully entitled to such interest shall be liable, on demand by the Land Administrator, to refund the amount received or to pay it to the person entitled thereto within three months or such longer period as the Land Administrator may specify in his demand. (emphasis added) S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ [61] In view of the decision made by the learned JC that the amount of the award by the PTG be reduced by RM73,940,025.28, it is clear that the award of the PTG was made "in error", and therefore the first respondent is entitled to the refund of the excess sum and/or interest. In Yakin Tenggara Sdn Bhd v. RHB Bank Bhd & Ors And Other Appeals [2017] 4 CLJ 738; [2017] 2 MLJ 774, this court has referred to Malacca Malay Guru2 Co-operative Thrift & Loan Society Ltd v Tan Mei Hua & Ors [1970] CLJU 77; [1970] 1 LNS 77; [1971] 1 MLJ 107 which held as follows: On the reversal of a judgment, the law raises an obligation on the party to the record who received the benefit of the erroneous judgment to make restitution to the other party for what he had lost and that it is the duty of the court to enforce that obligation... The underlying principle is that when the main judgment or order is varied or reversed, all orders consequential or depending upon it are affected and wrongs done under them have to be righted by granting restitution. (emphasis added) [62] Added to that, it had been established from the decision of the learned JC to reduce the award that it is the first respondent, not the appellant, who is therefore entitled to the excess sum. The order to refund the excess sum is the natural consequence of the decision of the learned JC. As such, we do not agree with the S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ submission of the appellant that the first respondent should initiate further legal actions to recoup the excess sum from the appellant.” [30] Oleh yang demikian ketiadaan Rezeki Alamdwi Sdn Bhd sebagai pihak ketiga dalam pendengaran rujukan tanah kelak tidak akan memprejudiskan Responden atau kelicinan perjalanan perbicaraan rujukan tanah tersebut. [31] Akhirnya, Mahkamah ini berpendapat permohonan pihak ketiga di bawah A. 18 k 19 KKM 2012 adalah dibenarkan dengan kos. [32] Penghakiman ini adalah juga terpakai kepada permohonan yang sama bagi kes CB-15-10-03/2023, CB-15-11-03/2023 dan CB-15-12- 03/2023. Bertarikh: 07hb. Jun 2024 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Perayu Ayub bin Yazid Tetuan Ya’qub, Ayub & Co. Kuala Lumpur Bagi Pihak Responden Abdul Hafiz bin Razat Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur Bagi Pihak Pihak Ketiga Rozilan bin Abdul Rahman Tetuan Rozilan & Aribah Ahmad Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur S/N AQGkxekdg0e9GJbytMHhQ