Sime Darby Plantation Berhad v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang (BA-15-3-01/2020)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RUJUKAN TANAH NO.: BA-15-3-01/2020 ANTARA SIME DARBY PLANTATION BERHAD …PERAYU DAN PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG …RESPONDEN DAN TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD …PENCELAH JUDGEMENT [In respect of Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s Interverner application in Enclosure 36] Introduction [1] This is Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s (TNB’s) Amended Notice of Application (“Encl. 36”) for the following prayers, inter alia:-

Preamble

Pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (“the LAA”), the scheduled lands were acquired by the respondent for the purposes of the 132kV transmission line from PMU Port Klang to PMU Kuala Selangor. [4] On 6.5.2019, after a hearing before the respondent, the applicant was awarded RM 1,149,480.00 as full compensation for its interest in the said lands which is payable by TNB. [5] The applicant, dissatisfied with the award of compensation, filed its Forms N for the respondent to refer its objection to the Court for determination. [6] The respondent referred the objection by the applicant to this Honourable Court on 31.12.2019. [7] TNB was served with the Forms O as the corporation on whose behalf the acquisition proceedings were instituted. [8] On 14.12.2021, TNB filed this instant application to protect its legal interest which will be directly affected by the order/judgment made in the proceedings before this Honourable Court. [9] The instant Application was also amended on 23.5.2021, following the recent decision of the Federal Court in Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad and Pentadbir Tanah Alor Gajah [2022] 2 MLJ 721. Analysis [10] The issue before this court is whether TNB as the paymaster who was not a party at the inquiry, should be allowed to be an intervener or be allowed to partake in the land reference proceedings. In this regard, parties alluded to two Federal Court decisions. [11] TNB in support of their application in enclosure 36 relied on the Federal Court case in Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2022] 2 MLJ 721 which stated that that an intervener’s application pursuant to O.15 r.6(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 can be made in land reference proceedings. [12] Sime Darby in opposing TNB’s application relied on another Federal Court case. Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals [2020] 2 MLJ 721. [13] Spicon Products Sdn Bhd (supra) is the more recent case of the two. [14] In Spicon Products Sdn Bhd (supra), the Federal Court held: “It will be quite wrong to say that these provisions and the scheme of Act 486 exclude the application of the Rules of Court 2012 such as to prevent a legitimate landowner as the appellant from intervening in the reference proceedings and protecting its interests and rights.” (Emphasis added) [15] In Spicon Products Sdn Bhd (supra), the landowner was the intervener. In this case, the intervener is the paymaster, not the land owner. In that sense, the factual matrix in the case of Spicon Products Sdn Bhd (supra) can be distinguished from the case before this court. [16] In the present case during the land acquisition hearing before the land administrator TNB, was also present. During the course of the acquisition hearing, TNB was not named as a party. Neither was TNB present there as an intervener. TNB did not present any valuation report pertaining to the scheduled land that was the subject matter of the acquisition exercise. [17] The Federal Court in Unggul Tangkas (supra) was of the view the provisions of the LAA Act made it clear that the lodging of Form N is essential if a party seeks to object to an award in land reference proceedings as it is aimed at an expeditious resolution of the objection to the award. [18] In this case, TNB did not file the Form N. Founded on the case of Unggul Tangkas (supra) (which this court is bound by stare decisis), it is essential for TNB to lodge Form N if indeed TNB intended to object to the award in the land reference proceedings. Decision [19] Founded on the case of Unggul Tangkas (supra) and the facts of this case as expounded above, this court dismisses this application in Enclosure 36 with costs of RM 3,500 subject to allocator. Date: 15 March 2023 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For The Applicant: Isabella Cheah Chooi Mun Tetuan Zain & Co Peguambela & Peguamcara Tingkat 6 & 7, Akademi Etiqa, 23, Jalan Melaka, 50100 Kuala Lumpur zainco@zain.com.my +6 03 2698 6255 For the Respondent: Mohd Abdul Hakim Bin Mohd Ali Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor. +6 03 5544 7183 For The Intervener: David Ng Yew Kiat, Leah Marie Samuel Tetuan Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership Advocates & Solicitors A1-12-01, Arcoris Mont Kiara, Jalan Kiara, 50482 Kuala Lumpur info@stsp.my +6 03 6411 9000