PRISTINE POWER SDN.BHD. v Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah (BA-15-140-06/2019)

This is an application by the proposed intervener, EKVE Sdn Bhd, to intervene and participate in the Land Reference proceedings initiated by Pristine Power Sdn Bhd.

It was allowed with costs. Hence, the applicant appeals against the Court Order dated 11-9-2025.

The East Klang Valley Expressway (hereinafter referred to as EKVE) entered into a Concession Agreement with the Government of Malaysia in 2013 for a project involving the design, construction, completion, operation, management, and maintenance of the EKVE Expressway. S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g

EKVE was granted rights to occupy all land required for the concession by the Government of Malaysia. This indicates that the Government of Malaysia will compulsorily acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The land cost to be borne by the Government of Malaysia was limited to RM360,000,000.00 only. Any land cost exceeding this amount shall be borne by EKVE, in accordance with Clause 9.4.1 of the Concession Agreement.

It is an undisputed fact that there is a dispute between EKVE and Pristine Power Sdn Bhd over land measuring approximately 693m2 out of 3,549m2 of Lot 126868 Seksyen 2 (PN112920), Mukim Bandar Ulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor Darul Ehsan, regarding whether the land was previously acquired for the Middle Ring Road in 1994/1995. The land was required for the EKVE project, and the Government of Malaysia was to make it available to

An enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was carried out, resulting in Pristine Power Sdn Bhd being awarded compensation of RM11,201,235.70. Dissatisfied with the award, Pristine Power Sdn Bhd subsequently lodged an objection to have the matter referred to the Court in accordance with Section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The land reference is currently before this Court.

EKVE similarly lodged its objection to the award made to Pristine Power Sdn Bhd, including the measurement of the Scheduled Land, S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g

10.1 The land acquisition was not carried out on behalf of EKVE. When the application was submitted in accordance with Section 3(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, as alleged by EKVE, it is essential to note that Section 3(2) of the same Act applies, which requires that the application must be submitted in writing.

10.2 The applicant maintains that when EKVE asserts the current land acquisition proceedings fall under Section 3(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, EKVE S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g must be able to submit a written application in accordance with Form 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules 2017 to the Land Administrator. It is further contended that EKVE has failed to produce the necessary written application. Moreover, it is alleged that the gazetted Form D lacks specificity regarding which limb of Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was invoked in the present court proceedings, as stipulated under the Act. Here, reference was made to the Federal Court case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals [2020] 2 MLJ 721, in which it was held that an application to the land administrator must be made in the prescribed format.

10.3 Therefore, the applicant contends that EKVE did not submit any written application in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. Consequently, it has failed to demonstrate that the land acquisition was conducted under Section 3(1)(b) of the same Act, nor has it established that S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g EKVE is the corporation on whose behalf the proceedings were initiated.

10.4 The applicant further submits that EKVE is not an interested party in the objection. EKVE is also not regarded as the paymaster solely because of the existing concession agreement with the Government of Malaysia. The applicant maintains that even if the purported land costs have exceeded the ceiling of RM360,000,000.00 as alleged by EKVE, this does not make EKVE the paymaster, nor does the payment of any excess amount relate exclusively to the applicant’s land. There is no evidence before this Court that EKVE has paid the compensation to the applicant.

10.5 Any alleged redesign of the passage is deemed irrelevant, as it was executed after the land acquisition enquiry. The land administrator is required to furnish evidence on this matter.

10.6 The applicant further affirms that both the Federal and State Governments have acknowledged the legitimacy of the applicant’s land, as evidenced by the S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g disbursement of compensation to the applicant.

10.7 It is also the applicant’s contention that the fact EKVE entered into a purported concession agreement with the Government does not evidentially mean that EKVE is the “corporation on whose behalf the proceedings were instituted”. Here, the applicant refers to the Federal Court’s decision in Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals [2020] 2 MLJ 721, as follows: “[42] For the present case, we found that the scheduled land was acquired under s3(1) (a) of the Act. This is evident from Form D issued by the state authority pursuant to s 7 of the Act. There was therefore no requirement for the acquiring party to comply with the provisions of ss3(3), 3(4),3(5),3(6), 3A, and 3F of the Act unlike if the scheduled land were to be acquired under s3(1)(b) or 3(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we agree with the contention of Unggul Tangkas that S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g the acquiring party and the paymaster is in fact the state authority. This is notwithstanding any internal arrangement between the state authority and TNB concerning the payment of the award.”

10.8 The applicant also asserts that there is no evidence indicating the Government of Malaysia's intention or plan to recover or recoup the mentioned compensation amount from EKVE, and this should be regarded as speculative. Additionally, Indian case law is not applicable, as the Land Acquisition Act of India does not contain a provision similar to Section 3(2) of the Malaysian Land Acquisition Act 1960.

In evaluating the applicant’s objections to EKVE’s application for intervention, this Court makes the following findings:

11.1 The applicant’s primary argument focused on the fact that it is not specified that the land acquisition was authorised under Section 3(1) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, as alleged by EKVE. Moreover, even if it were, EKVE S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g failed to submit a written application pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, EKVE is not an interested party, as claimed.

11.2 In the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia v Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd [2011] 3 CLJ 159, it was determined that the land was acquired for the “Projek Lebuhraya Kajang-Seremban,” thus fitting the definition under Section 3(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The State Authority is authorised to acquire land for the purpose of promoting Malaysia's economic development, benefiting the public, or serving any specific group within the public.

11.3 It is an undisputed fact in these proceedings before this Court that the land was acquired for the "Projek Lebuhraya Lembah Klang Timur (EKVE) Tambahan Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor" to construct an elevated U-turn ramp. Moreover, the project is expected to deliver substantial benefits to the public, particularly through economic development and improved S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g transportation access. Accordingly, applying the Court of Appeal decision in Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia v Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd [2011] 3 CLJ 159, this Court concludes that the land acquisition falls within the scope of Section 3(1) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, although the gazetted Form D does not specify which limb of Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was invoked in these proceedings.

11.4 This Court recognises that Pristine Power Sdn Bhd has formally lodged its objection pursuant to Section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. Additionally, EKVE has submitted an objection concerning the compensation awarded and the measurement of the Scheduled Land under the same statute. This matter arises from an ongoing trial concerning the land's status, in which EKVE asserts that the land acquired in 1994/1995 was incorrectly included in Pristine Power Sdn Bhd's final title. It is claimed that this land was intended to be allocated to EKVE for the construction of the elevated U-turn ramp. S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g

11.5 Moving on, the applicant, in their submission in reply, contended that it has no issues regarding EKVE’s application being based on Sections 43 and 55 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. Its sole concern is that EKVE’s application does not satisfy the requirements for Sections 43 and 55 to be invoked, as EKVE is neither “the person or corporation on whose behalf the proceedings were instituted” nor a “person interested” in the facts and circumstances of the current proceedings before this Court.

11.6 This Court observed that Section 43 (b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 initially states as follows: “the person or corporation, if any, on whose behalf the proceedings were instituted pursuant to section 3.”

11.7 The phrase “pursuant to section 3” was removed following the land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 2016. This indicates that Section 43(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is not subject to Section 3 of the same Act. S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g

11.8 Therefore, this Court agrees with the submission by the proposed intervener that whether EKVE is a person or a corporation on whose behalf the proceedings were initiated is irrelevant to the specific limb of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 under which the case was brought, and whether an application was made using Form 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules 2017. This aligns with the majority decision in Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia v

Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd [2011] 3 CLJ The fact that the intended purpose of the acquisition was stated in Section 8 Gazette as “Projek Lebuhraya Kajang-Seremban” does not prevent the Court of Appeal from finding that the acquisition was made pursuant to Section 3(1) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. And therefore, Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia was the person on whose behalf the acquisition was made.

11.9 Applying the same principle, this Court hereby rules that EKVE be permitted to intervene as an intervener in the current proceedings before this Court, as the Scheduled Land was acquired for the S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g purpose of constructing an elevated U-turn ramp under the EKVE project.

11.10 This Court notes that the applicant heavily relied on the Federal Court decision of Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals [2020] 2 MLJ 721. The main issue in that case was whether TNB, as the paymaster, could intervene and become a party to the land reference proceedings in the High Court. Significantly, the case did not involve Section 43 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

11.11 In a more recent Federal Court case, Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 195, it was decided as follows: “[118] With these clear terms as to how evidence is to be tendered and received by the High Court and what the procedure is in reference proceedings, it is difficult to agree with the view held by the Court of Appeal and also maintain the position adopted in Unggul S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g Tangkas. We also find reliance on the Privy Council decision in Collector of Land Revenue v Alagappa Chettiar (supra) misplaced. It is incorrect to say that the Land Administrator is present at the reference proceedings to defend the award, as he is “fully entitled to lead such evidence as he considered necessary to do so “equates to a landowner‘s lack of a right to attend and participate in reference proceedings initiated by some other person interested. Since reference proceedings are original proceedings with parties cast in the respective roles, as explained in Collector of Land Revenue v Alagappa Chettiar, and as envisaged under the Third Schedule, the Land Administrator does not really defend the award for anyone. The Land Administrator merely explains its award and provides further justification if he chooses.” S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g

11.12 EKVE has submitted evidence consistent with Clause 9 of the Concession Agreement, demonstrating that the maximum threshold of RM360,000,000.00 has been exceeded. EKVE shall bear responsibility for expenses related to the acquisition of the Scheduled Land if it fails in the civil litigation. The fact that the Government of Malaysia has remitted the compensation amount on behalf of the Selangor State Financial Officer does not exempt EKVE from its obligation as the ultimate payer. Additionally, EKVE formally contested the award of the Land Administrator, which has been referred to this Court. In view of these considerations, this Court rules that EKVE, as an interested party, is granted permission to intervene in the ongoing proceedings.

11.13 Reference is made to the Court of Appeal case, Tegas Sejati Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Anor and another appeal [2023] 6 CLJ 269, as follows: S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g “[47] In contrast, it should also be noted that the Federal Court in Unggul Tangkas did not address the definition of “any person interested “under s37 of the LAA. And the Federal Court also did not expressly pronounce that the paymaster is not a “person interested “to lodge an objection to the award within the meaning of s37 of the LAA.” [51] We were therefore of the view that the decision of the Federal Court in Cahaya Baru represents the ratio decidendi which is binding on the High Court in the instant case.This includes the finding that LLM has the locus standi to file a Form N, it being the paymaster , is a “ person interested “ within the meaning of s37(1) read with s37(3) of the LAA and by virtue of the definition of “ person interested ” under s2 of the LAA,and that LLM , being a statutory agency of the Ministry of Public Works has the locus standi to file a Form N.” S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g

11.14 In the current proceedings, the Land Administrator awarded the applicant, Pristine Power, costs for a "banglo mewah” residential house amounting to RM4,535,265.70. Demolition costs were granted at RM150,000.00. All awards were made under the consideration that the house was not part of the acquisition. The Land Administrator's rationale was to ensure the safety and comfort of the occupants following the acquisition.

11.15 When the award was initially granted, the consideration must have been based on the damage sustained at the time the Land Administrator acquired the Scheduled Land. LLM’s approval for the realignment of the raised U-turn ramp was granted on 30-8-2022. The compensation award was issued to the applicant on 21-3-2025. The primary aim of reorienting the elevated U-turn ramp was to address any purported concerns regarding the safety and comfort of the applicant, the occupant of the residential home. Therefore, the reorientation of the ramp will influence the cost factors to be included in the award to the applicant, making it S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g essential for EKVE to intervene. And it cannot be ignored that, in Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 195, the Federal Court held that it is no longer the law in Malaysia that only the Land Administrator has the right to defend the paymaster's interests. Therefore, this case is deemed appropriate and suitable for EKVE to intervene in the current proceedings. Conclusion 12. This Court, having carefully examined the aforementioned reasons, hereby rules that the application submitted by EKVE shall be granted, including all associated costs. Dated: 25th November 2025 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Selangor Date of Decision: 11th September 2025 S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g Counsels: For the Applicant : Denise Phang, Kirthika Padmanapan & Joseph Khor Shan Yang Messrs Mah Weng Kwai & Associates For the Respondent : Mohd Abdul Hakim bin Mohd Ali Senior Federal Counsel (SFC) Chambers of Selangor State Legal Advisor For EKVE Sdn Bhd : Michael Yap Chih Hong, Haikaldin Mahyidin & Muhammad Irfan bin Abdul Halim Messrs Tommy Thomas S/N uMskRWQ40ka9S2hxKgd95g