SUBRAMANIAM A/L VELLASAMY v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang (B-01(A)-130-02/2024)

PENGARAH TANAH GALIAN SELANGOR ... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Permohonan Bagi Semakan Kehakiman No.: BA-25-21-03/2022 Dalam perkara pengambilan tanah di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 ke atas tanah terjadual yang dipegang di bawah Hakmilik Lot 10433, GRN 20043, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Selangor ("Tanah tersebut"); dan Dalam perkara pemberian Pengambilan No. 714/2015, Pemberitahu Warta Kerajaan No. 3817/08.10.2015 dan perserahan Notis Awad dalam Borang H (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 29.9.2017 oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang kepada Subramaniam A/L Vellasamy; dan Dalam perkara mengenai keputusan penarikan balik pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang melalui Borang LB (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang diserahkan kepada Subramaniam A/L Vellasamy pada 21.12.2021; danDalam perkara mengenai keputusan pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang melalui Borang E (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang diserahkan kepada Subramaniam A/L Vellasamy pada 21.12.2021; danDalam perkara mengenai perisytiharaan pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor pada 7.5.2021 melalui Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 1350 bertarikh 27.5.2021; danDalam perkara mengenai Notis penarikan balik pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor pada 7.5.2021 melalui Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 1351 bertarikh 27.5.2021; danDalam perkara mengenai permohonan oleh Subramaniam A/L Vellasamy untuk kebenaran dan Perintah-perintah Certiorari, Mandamus dan Deklarasi; danDalam perkara mengenai perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyenseksyen 10,11,14,16,18,32 dan 35 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 25 (2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan Perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen 21, 41 dan 44 Akta Spesifik Relif 1950; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Aturan 53 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Antara Subramaniam A/L Vellasamy (No. K/P:490518-07-5547) ...Pemohon

Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang

Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Selangor ...Responden-Responden DIDENGAR BERSAMA DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: B-01(A)-131-02/2024 T. MOHAN A/L ELLEN @ THANDAVAMURTHI (NO. K/P: 660307-10-5055)

PENGARAH TANAH GALIAN SELANGOR ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman No.: BA-25-26-03/2022 Dalam perkara pengambilan tanah di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 ke atas tanah terjadual yang dipegang di bawah Hakmilik Lot 10433, GRN 20043, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Selangor ("Tanah tersebut"); dan Dalam perkara pemberian Pengambilan No. 714/2015, Pemberitahu Warta Kerajaan No. 3817/08.10.2015 dan perserahan Notis Awad dalam Borang H (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 29.9.2017 oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang kepada T.Mohan A/L Ellen @ Thandavamurthi; dan Dalam perkara mengenai keputusan penarikan balik pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang melalui Borang LB (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang diserahkan kepada T.Mohan A/L Ellen @ Thandavamurthi pada 23.12.2021; dan Dalam perkara mengenai keputusan pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang melalui Borang E (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang diserahkan kepada T.Mohan A/L Ellen @ Thandavamurthi pada 23.12.2021; dan Dalam perkara mengenai perisytiharaan pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor pada 7.5.2021 melalui Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 1350 bertarikh 27.5.2021; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Notis penarikan balik pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor pada 7.5.2021 melalui Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 1351 bertarikh 27.5.2021; dan Dalam perkara mengenai permohonan oleh T.Mohan A/L Ellen @ Thandavamurthi untuk kebenaran dan Perintah-perintah Certiorari, Mandamus dan Deklarasi; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyenseksyen 10,11,14,16,18,32 dan 35 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 25 (2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan Perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen 21, 41 dan 44 Akta Spesifik Relif 1950; dan Dalam perkara mengenai aturan 53 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Antara T. Mohan A/L Ellen @ Thandavamurthi (No. K/P: 660307-10-5055) ... Pemohon

Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang

Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Selangor ... Responden-Responden DIDENGAR BERSAMA DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B-01(A)-132-02/2024

PENGARAH TANAH GALIAN SELANGOR ... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN Dalam perkara pengambilan tanah di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 ke atas tanah terjadual yang dipegang dibawah Hakmilik Lot 10433, GRN 20043, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Selangor ("Tanah tersebut"); dan Dalam perkara pemberian Pengambilan No. 714/2015, Pemberitahu Warta Kerajaan No. 3817/08.10.2015 dan perserahan Notis Awad dalam Borang H (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 29.9.2017 oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang kepada Balasumathi A/P Ellen; dan Dalam perkara mengenai keputusan penarikan balik pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang melalui Borang LB (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang diserahkan kepada Balasumathi A/P Ellen pada 23.12.2021; dan Dalam perkara mengenai keputusan pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang melalui Borang E (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960) bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang diserahkan kepada Balasumathi A/P Ellen pada 23.12.2021; dan Dalam perkara mengenai perisytiharaan pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor pada 7.5.2021 melalui Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 1350 bertarikh 27.5.2021; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Notis penarikan balik pengambilan Tanah tersebut oleh Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor pada 7.5.2021 melalui Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 1351 bertarikh 27.5.2021; dan Dalam perkara mengenai permohonan oleh Balasumathi A/P Ellen untuk kebenaran dan Perintah-perintah Certiorari, Mandamus dan Deklarasi; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyenseksyen 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 32 dan 35 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 25(2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan Perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen 21, 41dan 44 Akta Spesifik Relif 1950; dan Dalam perkara mengenai Aturan 53 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Antara Balasumathi A/P Ellen (No. K/P: 680910-10-6384) ...Pemohon

Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang

Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Selangor ...Responden-Responden] CORAM: AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, HMR AHMAD FAIRUZ BIN ZAINOL ABIDIN, HMR LIM HOCK LENG, HMR

There are before us 3 related appeals, each brought by the registered owner (Subramaniam a/l Vellasamy, T. Mohan a/l Ellen @ Thandavamurthi, and Balasumathi a/p Ellen) of sublots in a parcel of land against the dismissal of their applications for judicial review by the learned High Court Judge ("HCJ") in relation to the decision by the Land Administrator of Klang and the Director of Lands and Mines of Selangor to simultaneously withdraw and re-commence the acquisition of their respective sub-lots of land on the same day. These Appellants will be referred to as the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ and $ 3^{\mathrm{rd}} $ Appellants respectively. Their sub-lots of land, held under title GRN 200413, Lot 10433 in the Klang District, will be referred to as the subject land or the subject lands, depending on whether the reference is in a singular or plural context. With the other sub-lots, the total area added up to 1.0572 hectares.

The appeals were heard together as they were premised on common salient facts, and the applications for judicial review had been heard and decided together.

The subject lands were compulsorily acquired by the Land Administrator of Klang (the 1 $ ^{1 \mathrm{st}} $ Respondent) for the purpose of "Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (LPB) Daerah Klang, Selangor".

The $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Respondent had published a notice of the compulsory acquisition in the Gazette on 8 October 2015.

The publication was followed by a Notice of Inquiry in Form E and a Notice to Require Evidence in Writing in Form F.

The Appellants then appointed Messrs Niza Din & Co to value the subject lands in order to determine a fair and just amount of compensation.

At the end of the inquiry, pursuant to section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent issued Form H with offers of compensation to the Appellants as follows:-

Subramaniam a/l Vellasamy RM475,000.00

(ii) T.Mohan a/l Ellen @ Thandavamurthi RM528,650.00

(iii) Balasumathi a/p Ellen RM545,000.00

All the Appellants accepted the offers in July 2018, and signed on Form H accordingly.

By letter dated 2 October 2018, the Ministry of Works wrote to the Ketua Pengarah Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia to make payment to the Appellants as per the Form H sum/compensation award.

It is not disputed that the Appellants had asked for the compensation awards on various occasions but to no avail. There was thus no payment made after acceptance of the Form H compensation award.

However, on 27 May 2021, declarations were published in Selangor State Government Gazette No.1351 and Selangor State Government Gazette No.1350 for the withdrawal of the acquisition of the entire parcel of land totalling 1.0572 hectares and for the resumption of acquisition of part of the entire land totalling 0.8799 hectares.

Subsequently, the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent issued notices withdrawing the compulsory acquisition vide the Form LB dated 15 December 2021.

At the same time, the Appellants also received Form E and Form F, both dated 15 December 2021, for the compulsory acquisition of the subject lands.

The Appellants claim that it was only on 12 January 2022 that they were informed for the first time that the withdrawal and recommencement of the compulsory acquisition of the subject lands were for cost-related reasons.

Aggrieved by the withdrawal of the original land acquisition and the simultaneous resumption of the acquisition, the Appellants applied for judicial review. Leave was granted.

In summary, the Appellants sought, inter alia:-

an Order of Certiorari to quash the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent's decision to issue the notice of withdrawal of the original acquisition vide Forms LB, the Forms E and Forms F, all dated 15 December 2021;

(ii) an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the $ 2^{n d} $ Respondent to make the declaration of acquisition of the subject lands vide the State Gazette Selangor No. 1350 dated 27.5.2021, and also the notice of withdrawal of acquisition of the subject lands vide the State Gazette Selangor No. 1351 dated 27.5.2021;

(iii) a Declaration/Order that the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent's decisions in prayer (i) are void, ultra vires, unlawful, invalid and/or an abuse of process;

(iv) a Declaration/Order that the $ 2^{\mathrm{n d}} $ Respondent's decisions in prayer (ii) are void, ultra vires, unlawful, invalid and/or an abuse of process;

a Declaration/Order that the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent has fully taken possession of the subject lands;

(vi) a Declaration/Order that the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent be deemed to have taken possession of the subject lands on 29 December 2017, that is, 3 months from the date of the Forms H, pursuant to sections 18 and 35 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960;

(vii) a Declaration/Order that the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ and $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Respondents be restrained from withdrawing or cancelling the acquisition of the subject lands;

(viii) an Order of Mandamus that the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent be directed to complete the acquisition of the subject lands by issuing and serving Form K pursuant to section 22 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960;

(ix) interest on the amounts awarded to each of the Appellants at the rate of 5% per annum from 29 December 2017 until the date of full settlement;

certificates be issued by this Court to the Appellants under section 33 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 against the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent to pay the awarded sums within 14 days from the date of delivery of the said certificate to the Selangor State Bar Association, together with the said interest;

(xi) costs; and

(xii) any other relief deemed fit or just. Appellants' Arguments

The Appellants premised their case on various grounds.

The Appellants' main contention is that the Respondents had effectively taken possession of the subject lands upon service of the Form H on the Appellants, thereby completing the acquisition process in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

They relied on section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 which provides, inter alia, that the "Land Administrator may take possession (a) 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."

In respect of section 35(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 which states: "The State Authority shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken," they argued that the withdrawal of any acquisition is only valid if possession has not been taken. In elaboration, they submitted that in this case, possession was taken "upon the service of Form H on the Appellant, in accordance with the clear meaning and operation of Sections 18 and 35 of the LAA. The service of Form H is a statutory act sufficient to effect possession under the LAA and does not require the additional step of formal possession under Section 22."

We are unable to agree with the Appellants' contention.

Section 18 clearly envisages situations where actual possession is taken at the same time as, or even prior to, service of the Form H. Such was the case in Fun Fatt (suing as the administrator to the estate of Lo Pang @ Fun Lim deceased) v Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2021] CLJU 1703 where the Defendant had taken possession of the subject land prior to the service of the Form H on 9 October 2017. The passage in the judgment cited by the Appellants must therefore be read subject to the fact of actual possession prior to service of the Form H: "By plain reading of s 18(a) of the Act, the second respondent had taken possession of the land upon service of Form H. Possession of the land had been taken by DF3 and DBKL, by permission of the second respondent, and work had commenced and was continuing, and this could be seen from the colour photographs of the works being carried out on the land. Further, evidence of DF3's occupation on the land was obvious as the safety cones been labelled as 'DUKE EKOVEST'. DF3's letter to LLM confirming that there would be no change in the design of the highway clearly showed DF3's intention to remain on the land and continue with the construction and completion of the highway despite the alleged withdrawal of the acquisition. The respondents had taken possession of the land under s 18(a) of the Act and it could not be withdrawn as it contravened s 35(1) of the Act (see paras 17 & 19-21)."

Section 18 also envisages situations when actual possession is taken "at any time thereafter."

Section 22(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 provides for formal possession. It states: "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."

In a nutshell, where the Form H is not preceded, accompanied or followed by actual possession, and there is no formal possession through service of the Form K, the State Authority is at liberty to withdraw from the compulsory acquisition.

In this regard, we respectfully refer to Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor & Anor v PNSB Acmar Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 CLJ 409 where Azizul JCA, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, succinctly held that once " (a) actual physical possession of the land is taken; or (b) the Form K is issued, the compulsory acquisition can no longer be withdrawn."

We agree with the Respondents that there is no evidence that they had in any way taken actual possession of any of the subject lands, and it is an objective fact that Form K has not been issued.

As such, the 1 $ ^{st} $ Respondent was at liberty to withdraw from the compulsory acquisition of the entire land measuring 1.0572 hectares and to recommence compulsory acquisition of only 0.8799 hectares. The decision cannot be said to be tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, or "unreasonableness" in the context of the Supreme Court's decision in Harpers Trading (M) Sdn Bhd v National Union of Commercial Workers [1991] 1 MLJ 417.

It follows that there can be no legitimate expectation on the part of the Appellants to receive compensation when possession has yet to be taken of the subject lands, much less when the original acquisition had been lawfully withdrawn in compliance with the prescribed Forms and publications in the gazette.

Since the Appellants are not entitled to the compensation or award as per the original Form H, there ought not to be any award of interest under section 32(1) read together with section 32(1C) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

As at the date of the last affidavit, the Appellants had not been deprived of their respective property otherwise than in compliance with the law. They will have to be paid adequate compensation for the resumed acquisition, but that is another matter. It was not a matter before the learned HCJ.

In the upshot, there is no contravention of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution which provides that "no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law," and "no law shall provide for compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation."

While learned counsel for the Appellants orally argued that the Respondents did not expressly highlight the reduction in the land as the reason for the withdrawal and recommencement of the compulsory acquisition, there was affidavit evidence on the reduced land area to be acquired vide the publications in the State Gazette Selangor No.1350 and No.1351.

The decision to withdraw from the compulsory acquisition of the entire land, and to commence the compulsory acquisition for a smaller part of the entire land, cannot be said to be devoid of reason.

The reason for the withdrawal from the compulsory acquisition of 1.0572 hectares and commencement of the compulsory acquisition of 0.8799 hectares is apparent from the Form E issued by the $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Respondent, and the gazette publications put up by the $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ Respondent.

Hence, the decision is not contrary to the principle that public authorities must provide reasons for their decisions, particularly where rights are adversely affected, as enunciated by the Federal Court in Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama Sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1.

For the reasons given, we are of the unanimous view that the appeals are to be dismissed. The learned HCJ's dismissal of the judicial review applications is hereby affirmed.

We make no order as to costs, considering that the Appellants, though no fault of theirs, have yet to receive their compensation. Dated the $ 24^{\mathrm{th}} $ day of September 2025 (Lim Hock Leng) Judge Court of Appeal Putrajaya, Malaysia. Counsel for the Appellant

Lim Jit Kiong

Lin Chia Yi

Amanda Yee Wen Kay [Messrs. JK LIM, Advocates & Solicitors] Counsel for the 1 $ ^{1 \mathrm{st}} $ Respondent

SFC Noor Fadzila binti Ishak

SFC Nur Aifaa binti Che Abdullah [Attorney General's Office] Counsel for the 2 $ ^{n d} $ Respondent

Ala Hani Aziza Ismail

Ala Etty Eliany Tesno

Ala Nor Fariza Ridzuan [Penolong Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Selangor]