Alia Nasuha Binti Rosman, Universiti Utara Malaysia
This case review of Ban Guan Hin Realty Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang & Ors meticulously examines the paramount significance of strict adherence to procedural protocols within the framework of land administration as governed by the National Land Code 1965 (NLC). The judicial pronouncement in this matter serves as a stark illustration of the profound impact that procedural irregularities can exert upon established property rights. Furthermore, this analysis underscores the constitutional safeguards enshrined within the Malaysian legal system, specifically those aimed at safeguarding individuals from unlawful dispossession of their property. The primary objective of this review is to furnish a succinct and insightful analysis of the case, primarily for the benefit of those with an academic interest in the intricacies of Malaysian land law and the principles of administrative justice.
This case involves the plaintiff, Ban Guan Hin Realty Sdn Bhd, a registered owner of a piece of land in Selangor, which was categorized as freehold for agricultural use. The Respondent, Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang & Ors was sued with the claim of failing to conduct a proper enquiry as mandated by the National Land Code (NLC). This led to a Forfeiture Order issued on 2.7.2020, despite the Appellant's compliance efforts and requests for extensions. The key issues in this case include the lack of evidence for a formal enquiry and the failure to call a material witness, En Zul, to support the Respondent's claims.
The Plaintiff contends that a formal enquiry was not conducted as required under section 129(4) of the NLC. The absence of proper documentation and witness testimony supports this claim. The Plaintiff argues that the Forfeiture Order breached Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which protects individuals from being deprived of property without due process. The Plaintiff highlights inconsistencies in the Respondent's claims, particularly regarding the existence of a letter and the failure to call a key witness (En Zul) to substantiate the Respondent's case. On the other hand, The Defendant argues that they complied with the necessary procedures under the National Land Code (NLC) and that an enquiry was conducted, albeit informally. The Defendant maintains that the Forfeiture Order was valid and justified based on the alleged violations of land use conditions by the Appellant. The Defendant disputes the Appellant's claims regarding the lack of proper documentation and contends that the absence of certain signatures does not invalidate the enquiry process.
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the failure of the Land Administrator (DW 1) to comply with the mandatory provisions of sections 31 and 32 of the National Land Code rendered the enquiry and subsequent actions defective, null, and void. The Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining a contemporaneous record of evidence and the importance of proper documentation in conducting legal enquiries. Additionally, the Court found that the lack of evidence and the absence of the attending officer's name in the Borang Kehadiran Siasatan indicated that no proper enquiry was conducted.
The case establishes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal enquiries, reinforcing the necessity for proper documentation and witness testimony. The ruling upholds the Appellant's rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, ensuring that individuals are not deprived of property without due process. The decision underscores the significance of presenting credible evidence and witnesses to support claims in legal proceedings. However, the ruling may lead to situations where procedural missteps, even if minor, can invalidate legitimate claims, potentially disadvantage parties who may have acted in good faith. The requirement for meticulous record-keeping and documentation may place additional burdens on Land Administrators and other officials, complicating their processes. The emphasis on procedural compliance may prolong legal proceedings which caused delay in obtaining resolutions for parties involved in disputes over land and property.
Section referred in this case is Section 129 National Land Code 1965 pertains to the mandatory requirement for conducting an enquiry before forfeiture. Section 130 National Land Code 1965 relates to the procedures for forfeiture of land. Section 131 National Land Code 1965 addresses the consequences of non-compliance with land conditions. Section 433 National Land Code 1965 involves the powers of the Land Administrator regarding enforcement actions. The case referred in this case are case of Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota Tinggi v United Malayan Banking [1982] CLJ (Rep) 244, the Federal Court held that once the forfeiture took effect under section 130(1) of the NLC, the Land Administrator has no power to resile or waive the order of Forfeiture. In case of Pow Hing & Anor v Registrar of Titles, Malacca [1980] 1 LNS 120 the Federal Court held that non compliance of the mandatory requirements would vitiate any subsequent forfeiture affected in the event of failure by the registered proprietor to comply with the Notice.
The case underscores that conducting a formal enquiry is not optional but a mandatory requirement under section 129(1) of the NLC. Failure to hold such an enquiry can lead to invalidation of any forfeiture actions taken. It highlights the necessity for proper documentation of evidence during the enquiry process. While verbatim records are not required, capturing the substance of evidence is crucial to ensure transparency and accountability in administrative decisions. The case illustrates the principle of adverse inference, where the failure to call a key witness can lead to assumptions that their testimony would have been unfavorable to the party that did not call them. This serves as a reminder of the strategic importance of witness testimony in legal proceedings. The ruling reinforces the notion that procedural fairness is essential in protecting individuals' property rights. It emphasizes that administrative bodies must follow due process to avoid arbitrary or unjust actions against property owners. Lastly, the case serves as a reminder for administrative bodies to comply with statutory provisions and guidelines to uphold the rule of law and maintain public trust in legal processes. Non-compliance can result in legal challenges and undermine the legitimacy of their actions.
The conclusion of the case Ban Guan Hin Realty Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang & Ors is that the court set aside the Forfeiture Order made by the Respondents due to significant procedural defects and violations of the National Land Code. The court found that a proper enquiry had not been conducted, rendering the forfeiture process fundamentally flawed and invalid. Ultimately, the court ruled that the order for forfeiture breached Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which protects individuals from being deprived of property without lawful process.
Comments