.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
Friday, November 23, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
PROGRAM TAKLIMAT KG CHUBADAK TAMBAHAN
COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA
Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd - vs - Ahmad Amirudin Kamarudin
Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd - vs - Ahmad Amirudin Kamarudin
Coram
SHAIK DAUD JCA
SITI NORMA YAAKOB JCA
DENIS J.F. ONG JCA
21 AUGUST 2000
Judgment: Shaik Daud, JCA
(delivering the judgment of the court)
1. The appellant is the registered owner of land known as HS(D) 66601 PT 2473 Mukim Setapak, Federal Territory which consists of 487,533 square feet of land (the said land). The said land was registered in the appellant's name on July 6, 1990. At that material time all the four respondents and a number of others were living on the said land. The appellant purchased the land from one STLR Sdn Bhd who became the owner of the land on October 26, 1985. Prior to that date the land belonged to the Government.
2. As the registered owner, the appellant filed a claim against the four respondents claiming that they were trespassers and prayed for vacant possession, mesne profits from October 11, 1993, until delivery of vacant possession, damages for trespass, interest and costs.
3. The respondents denied that they were trespassers. They contended that they were the lawful occupants of the said land as licensees coupled with equity and that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the equity. They also contend that their continuous occupation of the said land was known to or expressly and / or impliedly acquiesced and / or encouraged by the State Authority and / or the City Hall of Kuala Lumpur, the predecessors of the appellant.
4. After a full and lengthy trial in which the learned Judge traced the history of the said land, he came to the conclusion that on the facts before him, he was satisfied that the respondents were not squatters simpliciter but were in occupation of the said land as licensees and with the consent of the State Authority that they could occupy or continue to occupy the said land.
5. In the light of that finding, the learned Judge gave vacant possession to the appellant subject to the appellant compensating the four respondents for all costs incurred in the construction and renovation of their respective houses, or alternatively the costs of the present value of the said houses to be assessed by an independent valuer to be mutually agreed to by the parties or if they fail to agree, to be appointed by the court and all costs incidental to relocating the respondents. The learned Judge also rejected the appellant's claim for special damages on the ground that they have not been sufficiently proved.
6. On our perusal of the records of appeal and after considering the submissions of both learned counsel, we find ourselves unable to disagree with the findings of the learned Judge. There was ample evidence before him to arrive at those conclusions.
7. The central issue before the court was the status of the respondents as far as the said land is concerned. The appellant contended all along that the respondents were squatters simpliciter and therefore they were trespassers on the said land. The respondents on the other hand, are not claiming any title to the said land. That the appellant is the registered owner of the said land is undisputed. The respondents while conceding that the appellant is now the registered owner, are contending that they are not squatters simpliciter but they occupied the said land with a licence in equity.
8. The said land appeared to have a chequered history. Initially the said land was a Malay Reserve land but such status was cancelled. Based on the evidence of a land surveyor one Seah Kok Seang, who testified as an expert witness, the learned Judge accepted his expert testimony that the Malay Reservation status was degazetted by Gazette Notification No 4851/1932 dated June 22, 1932. This was confirmed in a letter from the Director of Lands & Mines dated February 9, 1996.
9. The respondents contend that when the appellant became the registered owner of the said land, it knew or ought to have known of the equity which had existed long before it became the owner. The respondents also contended that their continuous occupation of the said land was known to or expressly or impliedly acquiesced and / or encouraged by the State Authority or by the City Hall.
10. It is also in evidence that between 1960 and 1990 various amenities were provided by the authorities such as a town hall, three mosques, water and electricity supply, telephone services, a clinic and the roads were paved.
11. The City Hall built a second town hall and a building to conduct women's development activities and a number of religious schools. The respondents also led evidence to show that this village, called Chubadak village was self-governed and self-administered.
12. There was also evidence that prior to the formation of the Federal Territory, the Selangor State Government formed a body known as the Committee of Village Development and Security (CVDS.) in this village which was headed by the Village Head.
13. When the Federal Territory was established on February 1, 1970, the CVDS was replaced by City Hall officials and the post of Village Head was abolished. In 1987, however, this post was revived and the Ministry of the Federal Territory appointed the former Village Head to administer this village.
14. In the 1960s, the Kuala Lumpur District Officer prepared a layout plan for the former mining land at which Chubadak Tambahan village and Puah Seberang village are situated, the object of which was to sub-divide the said land into various lots which would be allocated to the then residents occupying the said land.
15. It is the contention of the respondents that between 1960 and 1990, many dignitaries made official visits to this village and they included politicians and royalties. In fact during the official launch of the Klinik Kesihatan Kanak-Kanak dan lbu in Chubadak Tambahan village, the then Chief Minister, Mr. Harun ldris, promised that the Selangor State Government would take certain measures to enable the residents of the village and an adjoining village to obtain ownership of the land they occupied.
16. This, the learned Judge found, was not a mere political gimmick but was based on a decision of the then Selangor State Executive Council. It was contended that the Chief Minister had no authority to bind the State Authority and his promise is insufficient. The Judge was mindful of the case of Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497, where it was held that 'State Authority' under the National Land Code is defined for the purpose of Selangor as the Ruler.
17. But in the present case the then Chief Minister was in fact conveying the decision of the State Executive Council and for all practical purposes the Ruler must act on the advice and recommendation of the State Executive Council. In 1974 the then Chief Minister also informed the residents that the State Government was going to issue separate titles to the settlers. He also referred to the minutes of a meeting dated December 9, 1976, which indicated that there was approval given by the State Executive Committee of Selangor on August 9, 1962, to alienate the said land to the Malay occupants residing in the land.
18. After the formation of the Federal Territory in 1974 and on January 10, 1976, the Land Executive Committee of the Federal Territory, which is the equivalent of the State Commissioners for Lands and Mines in other States, expressly agreed that the said approval of the Selangor State Executive Committee be carried out by the Collector of Land Revenue of the Federal Territory. There was no evidence that the Land Executive Committee of Federal Territory had changed or revoked its policy in relation to the occupation of the Malay residents of Chubadak village. All these remained unchallenged.
19. Having traced the history of the said land and as to how and when each of the respondents came to be on the said land, and considering the Federal Court decision in Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the respondents were not squatters simpliciter, as the appellant was trying to make them out to be. He found there was consent and licensed from the State Authority that the respondents can occupy or continue to occupy the said land.
20. The respondents also established that based on the State Authority's acquiescence, encouragement and approval, they expanded money and labour to improve and further develop the land in Chubadak Tambahan, which was a former mining land. All these were known to the predecessors of the appellant.
21. Therefore, on the evidence before the learned Judge, he rightly came to the conclusion as he did and we have no reason to disagree. We dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the findings and orders of the learned Judge and also ordered that the deposit be paid out to the respondents to account of their taxed costs.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Cases
Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343; Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497.
Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343; Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497.
Representations
G Gunaseelan, T Gunaseelan
and K Balaguru (G Gunaseelan & Associates)
for Appellant
Salleh Abas, Sivarasa Rasiah and Kamarul Hisham (Daim & Gamany) for Respondents
Salleh Abas, Sivarasa Rasiah and Kamarul Hisham (Daim & Gamany) for Respondents
__________________________________________________________________________________
TERJEMAHAN BAHASA MALAYSIA
MAHKAMAH
RAYUAN MALAYSIA
Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd - vs - Ahmad Amirudin Kamarudin
Coram
Shaik Daud JCA
Siti Norma Yaakob JCA
DENIS J.F. ONG JCA
Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd - vs - Ahmad Amirudin Kamarudin
Coram
Shaik Daud JCA
Siti Norma Yaakob JCA
DENIS J.F. ONG JCA
21 OGOS 2000
Penghakiman
Shaik Daud, JCA
(Menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah)
Penghakiman
Shaik Daud, JCA
(Menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah)
1. Perayu adalah tuan punya berdaftar tanah yang dikenali sebagai HS (D) 66601 PT 2473 Mukim Setapak, Wilayah Persekutuan yang terdiri daripada 487.533 kaki persegi tanah (tanah tersebut). Perayu berkata tanah telah didaftarkan dalam nama perayu pada 6 Julai 1990. Pada masa yang itu semua empat responden dan beberapa orang lain, tinggal di atas tanah tersebut. Perayu membeli tanah itu dari STLR Sdn Bhd yang menjadi pemilik tanah tersebut pada Oktober 26, 1985. Sebelum tarikh itu, tanah itu milik Kerajaan.
2. Sebagai pemunya berdaftar, perayu memfailkan tuntutan terhadap empat responden yang mendakwa bahawa mereka adalah penceroboh dan meminta bagi pemilikan kosong, gantirugi dari 11 Oktober, 1993, sehingga penyerahan pemilikan kosong, ganti rugi bagi pencerobohan, faedah dan kos.
3. Responden menafikan bahawa mereka adalah penceroboh. Mereka
berhujah bahawa mereka adalah
penghuni yang sah di sisi undang-undang tanah tersebut sebagai pemegang lesen
ditambah dengan ekuiti dan perayu tahu atau sepatutnya telah diketahui
ekuiti. Mereka juga berhujah bahawa pendudukan berterusan mereka berkata tanah
itu dikenali atau nyata dan / atau tersirat dibebaskan dan / atau digalakkan
oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri dan / atau Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, yang
terdahulu perayu.
4. Selepas perbicaraan yang terperinci dan panjang lebar, Hakim yang arif mengkaji di sudut kesan sejarah tanah tersebut, serta bukti-bukti yang dibawa datang untuk kesimpulan terhadap fakta-fakta di hadapannya, beliau berpuas hati bahawa responden tidak setinggan dan menduduki tanah sebagai pemegang lesen yang sah dan dengan persetujuan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri yang mereka boleh menduduki atau terus menduduki tanah tersebut.
5. Dalam pada itu, Hakim yang arif memberi pemilikan kosong kepada perayu tertakluk pampasan rumah-rumah empat responden untuk semua kos yang ditanggung dalam pembinaan dan pengubahsuaian rumah masing-masing, atau sebagai alternatif kos nilai semasa berkata akan dinilai oleh jurunilai bebas yang akan dipersetujui bersama oleh pihak-pihak atau jika mereka tidak bersetuju, yang hendaklah dilantik oleh mahkamah dan semua kos sampingan untuk menempatkan semula responden. Hakim yang arif juga menolak tuntutan perayu untuk ganti rugi khas atas alasan bahawa mereka belum terbukti dengan secukupnya.
6. Mengenai semakan rekod rayuan dan selepas menimbangkan penghujahan peguam kedua-dua pihak, kita mendapati bahawa diri kita perlu bersetuju dengan penemuan Hakim yang arif. Terdapat banyak bukti sebelum beliau membuat kesimpulan.
7. Isu utama sebelum mahkamah memutuskan adalah status responden sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut. Perayu menegaskan sepanjang tempoh itu bahawa responden adalah setinggan dan oleh itu mereka penceroboh ke atas tanah tersebut. Responden di sisi lain, tidak menuntut apa-apa hakmilik kepada tanah tersebut. Ini menunjukkan bahawa perayu adalah pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut adalah tidak boleh dipertikaikan. Responden manakala bersetuju bahawa perayu kini pemunya berdaftar, yang bertanding bahawa mereka tidak setinggan tetapi mereka menduduki tanah tersebut dengan lesen dalam ekuiti.
8. Jika dikaji isu tanah mempunyai sejarah imej pelbagai. Pada mulanya, tanah tersebut adalah tanah Rizab Melayu tetapi status itu telah dibatalkan. Berdasarkan kepada bukti tanah juruukur satu Seah Kok Seang, yang memberi keterangan sebagai saksi pakar, Hakim yang arif menerima keterangan pakar bahawa status Rizab Melayu diwartakan oleh Pemberitahuan Warta No 4851/1932 bertarikh 22 Jun, 1932. Ini telah disahkan dalam surat daripada Pengarah Tanah & Galian yang bertarikh 9 Februari, 1996.
9. Responden berhujah bahawa apabila perayu menjadi pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut, ia tahu atau sepatutnya telah diketahui ekuiti yang telah wujud lama sebelum ia menjadi pemilik. Responden juga menegaskan bahawa pendudukan berterusan mereka berkata tanah itu dikenali atau secara nyata atau tersirat dibebaskan dan / atau digalakkan oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri atau oleh Dewan Bandaraya.
4. Selepas perbicaraan yang terperinci dan panjang lebar, Hakim yang arif mengkaji di sudut kesan sejarah tanah tersebut, serta bukti-bukti yang dibawa datang untuk kesimpulan terhadap fakta-fakta di hadapannya, beliau berpuas hati bahawa responden tidak setinggan dan menduduki tanah sebagai pemegang lesen yang sah dan dengan persetujuan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri yang mereka boleh menduduki atau terus menduduki tanah tersebut.
5. Dalam pada itu, Hakim yang arif memberi pemilikan kosong kepada perayu tertakluk pampasan rumah-rumah empat responden untuk semua kos yang ditanggung dalam pembinaan dan pengubahsuaian rumah masing-masing, atau sebagai alternatif kos nilai semasa berkata akan dinilai oleh jurunilai bebas yang akan dipersetujui bersama oleh pihak-pihak atau jika mereka tidak bersetuju, yang hendaklah dilantik oleh mahkamah dan semua kos sampingan untuk menempatkan semula responden. Hakim yang arif juga menolak tuntutan perayu untuk ganti rugi khas atas alasan bahawa mereka belum terbukti dengan secukupnya.
6. Mengenai semakan rekod rayuan dan selepas menimbangkan penghujahan peguam kedua-dua pihak, kita mendapati bahawa diri kita perlu bersetuju dengan penemuan Hakim yang arif. Terdapat banyak bukti sebelum beliau membuat kesimpulan.
7. Isu utama sebelum mahkamah memutuskan adalah status responden sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut. Perayu menegaskan sepanjang tempoh itu bahawa responden adalah setinggan dan oleh itu mereka penceroboh ke atas tanah tersebut. Responden di sisi lain, tidak menuntut apa-apa hakmilik kepada tanah tersebut. Ini menunjukkan bahawa perayu adalah pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut adalah tidak boleh dipertikaikan. Responden manakala bersetuju bahawa perayu kini pemunya berdaftar, yang bertanding bahawa mereka tidak setinggan tetapi mereka menduduki tanah tersebut dengan lesen dalam ekuiti.
8. Jika dikaji isu tanah mempunyai sejarah imej pelbagai. Pada mulanya, tanah tersebut adalah tanah Rizab Melayu tetapi status itu telah dibatalkan. Berdasarkan kepada bukti tanah juruukur satu Seah Kok Seang, yang memberi keterangan sebagai saksi pakar, Hakim yang arif menerima keterangan pakar bahawa status Rizab Melayu diwartakan oleh Pemberitahuan Warta No 4851/1932 bertarikh 22 Jun, 1932. Ini telah disahkan dalam surat daripada Pengarah Tanah & Galian yang bertarikh 9 Februari, 1996.
9. Responden berhujah bahawa apabila perayu menjadi pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut, ia tahu atau sepatutnya telah diketahui ekuiti yang telah wujud lama sebelum ia menjadi pemilik. Responden juga menegaskan bahawa pendudukan berterusan mereka berkata tanah itu dikenali atau secara nyata atau tersirat dibebaskan dan / atau digalakkan oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri atau oleh Dewan Bandaraya.
10. Ia juga adalah bukti bahawa antara 1960 dan 1990 pelbagai kemudahan telah disediakan oleh pihak berkuasa seperti dewan perbandaran, tiga buah masjid, air dan bekalan elektrik, perkhidmatan telefon, klinik dan jalan raya berturap.
11. Dewan Bandaraya membina sebuah dewan masyarakat yang kedua dan sebuah bangunan untuk menjalankan aktiviti-aktiviti pembangunan wanita dan beberapa sekolah-sekolah agama. Responden juga membawa bukti untuk menunjukkan bahawa kampung ini, dipanggil Chubadak Tambahan iaitu kampung dikawal dan ditadbir oleh Jawatan Kuasa sendiri.
12. Terdapat juga bukti bahawa sebelum pembentukan Wilayah Persekutuan, Kerajaan Negeri Selangor telah membentuk sebuah badan yang dikenali sebagai Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (JKKK) di kampung ini yang diketuai oleh Ketua Kampung.
13. Apabila Wilayah Persekutuan telah ditubuhkan pada 1 Februari, 1970, JKKK telah digantikan oleh pegawai Dewan Bandaraya dan jawatan Ketua Kampung telah dimansuhkan. Walau bagaimanapun, pada tahun 1987, jawatan ini dihidupkan semula dan Kementerian Wilayah Persekutuan yang dilantik bekas Ketua Kampung untuk mentadbir kampung ini.
14. Pada tahun-tahun 1960-an, Pegawai Daerah Kuala Lumpur menyediakan pelan susun atur bagi tanah bekas perlombongan di mana Chubadak Tambahan dan Puah Seberang di mana kampung terletak, permohonan tanah kepada lot pelbagai yang akan diperuntukkan kepada penduduk ketika itu menduduki tanah tersebut.
15. Ia adalah pendirian responden bahawa antara 1960 dan 1990, pembesar-pembesar banyak membuat lawatan rasmi ke kampung ini dan mereka termasuk ahli-ahli politik dan Sultan. Malah semasa pelancaran rasmi Klinik Kesihatan Kanak-Kanak dan lbu di Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, Ketua Menteri, Datuk Harun ldris, menjanjikan bahawa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor akan mengambil langkah-langkah tertentu bagi membolehkan penduduk kampung dan bersebelahan kampung untuk mendapatkan hak milik tanah yang mereka menduduki.
16. Dengan ini, Hakim yang arif menilai fakta, bukan gimik politik semata-mata tetapi adalah berdasarkan keputusan ketika itu Majlis Eksekutif Negeri Selangor. Ia telah menegaskan bahawa Ketua Menteri tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mengikat Pihak Berkuasa Negeri dan janjinya tidak mencukupi. Hakim itu sedar akan hal Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497, di mana ia telah diadakan 'Pihak Berkuasa Negeri di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara ditakrifkan bagi maksud Selangor sebagai Sultan.
17. Tetapi di dalam kes ini Menteri ketika itu Ketua sebenarnya menyampaikan keputusan Majlis Eksekutif Negeri dan untuk semua tujuan yang praktikal Sultan mesti bertindak atas nasihat dan syor Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri. Pada tahun 1974 Ketua Menteri juga memberitahu penduduk bahawa Kerajaan Negeri akan mengeluarkan hakmilik kepada peneroka. Beliau juga merujuk kepada minit mesyuarat bertarikh 9 Disember, 1976, yang menunjukkan bahawa ada kelulusan yang diberikan oleh Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Negeri Selangor pada 9 Ogos, 1962, membahagikan tanah kepada penghuni Melayu yang tinggal di situ.
18. Selepas penubuhan Wilayah Persekutuan pada tahun 1974 dan pada Januari 10, 1976, Jawatankuasa Eksekutif
Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan, yang bersamaan dengan Pesuruhjaya Negeri bagi Tanah
dan Galian di negeri-negeri lain, bersetuju dengan nyata bahawa berkata kelulusan
Selangor Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Negeri dijalankan oleh Pemungut Hasil Tanah
Wilayah Persekutuan. Tidak ada bukti bahawa Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Tanah
Wilayah Persekutuan telah diubah atau dibatalkan dasar berhubung dengan
pendudukan penduduk Melayu di kampung Chubadak. Semua ini kekal tidak dicabar.
19. Setelah menjejaki sejarah tanah tersebut dan tentang bagaimana dan bila setiap responden datang ke atas tanah tersebut, dan mengambil kira keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, Yang Arif Hakim membuat kesimpulan bahawa responden tidak setinggan, sepertimana perayu telah cuba untuk membuat mereka menjadi setinggan. Beliau mendapati terdapat kebenaran dan lesen daripada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri bahawa responden boleh menduduki atau terus menduduki tanah tersebut.
20. Responden juga menetap berdasarkan kepada persetujuan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, galakan dan kelulusan, mereka berkembang wang dan buruh untuk memperbaiki dan memajukan lagi tanah di Chubadak Tambahan, yang merupakan bekas tanah lombong. Semua ini telah diketahui terdahulu perayu.
21. Oleh itu, berdasarkan keterangan di hadapan Hakim yang arif, responden membawa fakta dan kesimpulan seperti yang dilakukannya dan kami tidak mempunyai sebab untuk tidak bersetuju. Kami menolak rayuan itu dengan kos dan mengesahkan keputusan dan perintah Hakim yang arif dan juga diperintahkan bahawa deposit itu dibayar kepada responden untuk kos yang dikenakan.
19. Setelah menjejaki sejarah tanah tersebut dan tentang bagaimana dan bila setiap responden datang ke atas tanah tersebut, dan mengambil kira keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, Yang Arif Hakim membuat kesimpulan bahawa responden tidak setinggan, sepertimana perayu telah cuba untuk membuat mereka menjadi setinggan. Beliau mendapati terdapat kebenaran dan lesen daripada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri bahawa responden boleh menduduki atau terus menduduki tanah tersebut.
20. Responden juga menetap berdasarkan kepada persetujuan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, galakan dan kelulusan, mereka berkembang wang dan buruh untuk memperbaiki dan memajukan lagi tanah di Chubadak Tambahan, yang merupakan bekas tanah lombong. Semua ini telah diketahui terdahulu perayu.
21. Oleh itu, berdasarkan keterangan di hadapan Hakim yang arif, responden membawa fakta dan kesimpulan seperti yang dilakukannya dan kami tidak mempunyai sebab untuk tidak bersetuju. Kami menolak rayuan itu dengan kos dan mengesahkan keputusan dan perintah Hakim yang arif dan juga diperintahkan bahawa deposit itu dibayar kepada responden untuk kos yang dikenakan.
________________________________________
Kes-kes
Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343; Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497.
Perwakilan
Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343; Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497.
Perwakilan
G Gunaseelan, T Gunaseelan dan K Balaguru (G Gunaseelan & Associates) bagi Perayu
Salleh Abas, Sivarasa Rasiah dan Kamarul Hisham (Daim & Gamany) untuk Responden
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
PROJEK HARAM PEMAJU(SENTUL MURNI) ANIAYA ORG MELAYU( KG CHU BADAK,SENTUL) DIBALAS DENGAN KUASA ALLAH SWT...
KUASA AllAH mengatasi kezaliman Pemaju yang di laknat mengambil HAK ORANG MELAYU!
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Sentul Murni Claim Kg Chubadak are "Setinggan"
Saturday August 11, 2012
Sentul Murni has land title to develop Kampung Chubadak Tambahan
By CHOONG MEK ZHIN
mekzhin@thestar.com.my
AMIDST the land claims of villagers in Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, developer Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd has declared that they are the rightful owners of the 20.23ha of land meant for the Bandar Sentul Utama township.
The company was responding to a story in StarMetro, “Se
Sentul Murni has land title to develop Kampung Chubadak Tambahan
By CHOONG MEK ZHIN
mekzhin@thestar.com.my
AMIDST the land claims of villagers in Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, developer Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd has declared that they are the rightful owners of the 20.23ha of land meant for the Bandar Sentul Utama township.
The company was responding to a story in StarMetro, “Se
ttlers unhappy with constant development in village” that was published on Aug 1.
“We have the title for the land. If any of the land rights claims were true, we would not have been given a land title to develop the area,” said Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd project director Mohd Zainudin Badarudin.
He said the township was approved in 1993 under the previous developer.
Parent company Melati Ehsan Group took over Sentul Murni in 2006 through a Special Purpose Vehicle process after the project was abandoned for 12 years.
“At that time, the four-block Sentul Utama Condominium project was only partially completed, leaving 648 buyers stranded.
“We stepped in to revive and finish the project,” said Zainudin.
“There were two other court cases not mentioned by the villagers.
“One was in 1996 where it was decided that the land was no longer considered a Malay Reserve Land.
“In the second case, it was decided that the land ownership transfer to Sentul Murni was legal,” he said.
He added that based on the most recent census done by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) in the area in 2006, there were only 419 families living in the area earmarked for the project.
Each family was eligible for a unit at the low-cost flats and relocation would be done in phases.
“We have relocated 143 families who were directly affected by the Sentul Utama project. We hope to relocate the rest as we develop the land,” he said.
A look at the original township plan from 1993 revealed that future plans for Bandar Sentul Utama will include People’s Public Housing, a school, a commercial area and a few residential high-rise buildings.
One of the residential project in the proposed township is Bayu Sentul, which will be developed by Arus Embun Sdn Bhd.
Sentul Murni and Arus Embun are subsidiaries of Melati Ehsan Group.
He added that the company had lodged many police reports about the various disturbances and property damage they have faced over the years carrying out building work for the township project
“We have the title for the land. If any of the land rights claims were true, we would not have been given a land title to develop the area,” said Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd project director Mohd Zainudin Badarudin.
He said the township was approved in 1993 under the previous developer.
Parent company Melati Ehsan Group took over Sentul Murni in 2006 through a Special Purpose Vehicle process after the project was abandoned for 12 years.
“At that time, the four-block Sentul Utama Condominium project was only partially completed, leaving 648 buyers stranded.
“We stepped in to revive and finish the project,” said Zainudin.
“There were two other court cases not mentioned by the villagers.
“One was in 1996 where it was decided that the land was no longer considered a Malay Reserve Land.
“In the second case, it was decided that the land ownership transfer to Sentul Murni was legal,” he said.
He added that based on the most recent census done by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) in the area in 2006, there were only 419 families living in the area earmarked for the project.
Each family was eligible for a unit at the low-cost flats and relocation would be done in phases.
“We have relocated 143 families who were directly affected by the Sentul Utama project. We hope to relocate the rest as we develop the land,” he said.
A look at the original township plan from 1993 revealed that future plans for Bandar Sentul Utama will include People’s Public Housing, a school, a commercial area and a few residential high-rise buildings.
One of the residential project in the proposed township is Bayu Sentul, which will be developed by Arus Embun Sdn Bhd.
Sentul Murni and Arus Embun are subsidiaries of Melati Ehsan Group.
He added that the company had lodged many police reports about the various disturbances and property damage they have faced over the years carrying out building work for the township project
Monday, August 6, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Developer in Kg Chubadak Strike, But The Kg folks are Ready With New Method of Defences
http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2012/8/1/central/11759122&sec=central
Wednesday August 1, 2012
Settlers unhappy with constant development in village
By CHOONG MEK ZHIN
mekzhin@thestar.com.my
Photo by YAP CHEE HONG
THE third generation settlers of Kampung Chubadak Tambahan in Sentul are shocked to find developer of residential project Bayu Sentul — Arus Embun Sdn Bhd — clearing a small portion of the land as well as hoarding up the 1.21ha site.
Residents’ Association chairman Ramlee Ahmad said there were uniformed and plainclothes police in the area and they were unable to do much to stop them.
He highlighted Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s (DBKL) failure to put up any notices to get residents’ objection to the high-rise residential development as well as the developer’s failure to put up any information board at the site.
Ramlee said the Appeals Court had made a decision in 2000 that stated their rights to the land where about 200 residents still live and grow fruit trees.
Work in progress: Workers putting up hoarding around the site where the high-rise residential Bayu Sentul will be built.
Ramlee also said their ancestors were given the land in 1916 when Federation of Malay States issued a gazette to make a 202.34 ha plot of the land a Malay Reserve area.
“Sometime between 1930 and 1955, two companies took large portions of the land for mining.
“This land was revoked years later and the then Kuala Lumpur district officer made a layout plan for the former mining land to be divided among the settlers,” he explained.
Ramlee said they had the land grant for the original area, before it was mined.
“We have been applying for a new grant since 1985 but it was rejected for reasons unknown to us.
“Development has taken place in the area. The village is now only about 20.23ha in size,” he said.
The last development project took place a few years ago.
“Since then, a few high-rise residential developments have been completed.
“Though the name of the developer for this new project is different than the one that built the others, the address points to the same parent company,” Ramlee said.
He added that residents had lodged many police reports and complaints to DBKL as well as submitted a memorandum to the Federal Government.
Arus Embun Sdn Bhd is a member of the Melati Ehsan Group which was reported in 2006 to have taken over Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd, the developer of Bandar Sentul Utama project.
Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd project director Mohd Zainuddin Badarudin said Melati Ehsan was seen as the ‘white knight’ which came in to complete the abandoned project.
“When we stepped in, the project was at phase two.
“It involved the construction of the Sentul Utama Condominium which has already been completed,” he said.
He added that Bayu Sentul was part of the overall project and would take up 1.21ha of land.
“There are more plans for the area including a People’s Housing Project, condominiums and a commercial area.
“But, we will need to address the matter of squatters still living on the land before we can proceed,” said Mohd Zainuddin.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
KG CHUBADAK TAMBAHAN DISPUTE..
1. The appellant is the registered owner of land known as HS(D) 66601 PT 2473 Mukim Setapak, Federal Territory which consists of 487,533 square feet of land (the said land). The said land was registered in the appellant's name on July 6, 1990. At that material time all the four respondents and a number of others were living on the said land. The appellant purchased the land from one STLR Sdn Bhd who became the owner of the land on October 26, 1985. Prior to that date the land belonged to the Government.
2. As the registered owner, the appellant filed a claim against the four respondents claiming that they were trespassers and prayed for vacant possession, mesne profits from October 11, 1993, until delivery of vacant possession, damages for trespass, interest and costs.
3. The respondents denied that they were trespassers. They contended that they were the lawful occupants of the said land as licensees coupled with equity and that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the equity. They also contend that their continuous occupation of the said land was known to or expressly and / or impliedly acquiesced and / or encouraged by the State Authority and / or the City Hall of Kuala Lumpur, the predecessors of the appellant.
4. After a full and lengthy trial in which the learned Judge traced the history of the said land, he came to the conclusion that on the facts before him, he was satisfied that the respondents were not squatters simpliciter but were in occupation of the said land as licensees and with the consent of the State Authority that they could occupy or continue to occupy the said land.
5. In the light of that finding, the learned Judge gave vacant possession to the appellant subject to the appellant compensating the four respondents for all costs incurred in the construction and renovation of their respective houses, or alternatively the costs of the present value of the said houses to be assessed by an independent valuer to be mutually agreed to by the parties or if they fail to agree, to be appointed by the court and all costs incidental to relocating the respondents. The learned Judge also rejected the appellant's claim for special damages on the ground that they have not been sufficiently proved.
6. On our perusal of the records of appeal and after considering the submissions of both learned counsel, we find ourselves unable to disagree with the findings of the learned Judge. There was ample evidence before him to arrive at those conclusions.
7. The central issue before the court was the status of the respondents as far as the said land is concerned. The appellant contended all along that the respondents were squatters simpliciter and therefore they were trespassers on the said land. The respondents on the other hand, are not claiming any title to the said land. That the appellant is the registered owner of the said land is undisputed. The respondents while conceding that the appellant is now the registered owner, are contending that they are not squatters simpliciter but they occupied the said land with a licence in equity.
8. The said land appeared to have a chequered history. Initially the said land was a Malay Reserve land but such status was cancelled. Based on the evidence of a land surveyor one Seah Kok Seang, who testified as an expert witness, the learned Judge accepted his expert testimony that the Malay Reservation status was degazetted by Gazette Notification No 4851/1932 dated June 22, 1932. This was confirmed in a letter from the Director of Lands & Mines dated February 9, 1996.
9. The respondents contend that when the appellant became the registered owner of the said land, it knew or ought to have known of the equity which had existed long before it became the owner. The respondents also contended that their continuous occupation of the said land was known to or expressly or impliedly acquiesced and / or encouraged by the State Authority or by the City Hall.
10. It is also in evidence that between 1960 and 1990 various amenities were provided by the authorities such as a town hall, three mosques, water and electricity supply, telephone services, a clinic and the roads were paved.
11. The City Hall built a second town hall and a building to conduct women's development activities and a number of religious schools. The respondents also led evidence to show that this village, called Chubadak village was self-governed and self-administered.
12. There was also evidence that prior to the formation of the Federal Territory, the Selangor State Government formed a body known as the Committee of Village Development and Security (CVDS.) in this village which was headed by the Village Head.
13. When the Federal Territory was established on February 1, 1970, the CVDS was replaced by City Hall officials and the post of Village Head was abolished. In 1987, however, this post was revived and the Ministry of the Federal Territory appointed the former Village Head to administer this village.
14. In the 1960s, the Kuala Lumpur District Officer prepared a layout plan for the former mining land at which Chubadak Tambahan village and Puah Seberang village are situated, the object of which was to sub-divide the said land into various lots which would be allocated to the then residents occupying the said land.
15. It is the contention of the respondents that between 1960 and 1990, many dignitaries made official visits to this village and they included politicians and royalties. In fact during the official launch of the Klinik Kesihatan Kanak-Kanak dan lbu in Chubadak Tambahan village, the then Chief Minister, Mr. Harun ldris, promised that the Selangor State Government would take certain measures to enable the residents of the village and an adjoining village to obtain ownership of the land they occupied.
16. This, the learned Judge found, was not a mere political gimmick but was based on a decision of the then Selangor State Executive Council. It was contended that the Chief Minister had no authority to bind the State Authority and his promise is insufficient. The Judge was mindful of the case of Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497, where it was held that 'State Authority' under the National Land Code is defined for the purpose of Selangor as the Ruler.
17. But in the present case the then Chief Minister was in fact conveying the decision of the State Executive Council and for all practical purposes the Ruler must act on the advice and recommendation of the State Executive Council. In 1974 the then Chief Minister also informed the residents that the State Government was going to issue separate titles to the settlers. He also referred to the minutes of a meeting dated December 9, 1976, which indicated that there was approval given by the State Executive Committee of Selangor on August 9, 1962, to alienate the said land to the Malay occupants residing in the land.
18. After the formation of the Federal Territory in 1974 and on January 10, 1976, the Land Executive Committee of the Federal Territory, which is the equivalent of the State Commissioners for Lands and Mines in other States, expressly agreed that the said approval of the Selangor State Executive Committee be carried out by the Collector of Land Revenue of the Federal Territory. There was no evidence that the Land Executive Committee of Federal Territory had changed or revoked its policy in relation to the occupation of the Malay residents of Chubadak village. All these remained unchallenged.
19. Having traced the history of the said land and as to how and when each of the respondents came to be on the said land, and considering the Federal Court decision in Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the respondents were not squatters simpliciter, as the appellant was trying to make them out to be. He found there was consent and licence from the State Authority that the respondents can occupy or continue to occupy the said land.
20. The respondents also established that based on the State Authority's acquiescence, encouragement and approval, they expanded money and labour to improve and further develop the land in Chubadak Tambahan, which was a former mining land. All these were known to the predecessors of the appellant.
21. Therefore, on the evidence before the learned Judge, he rightly came to the conclusion as he did and we have no reason to disagree. We dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the findings and orders of the learned Judge and also ordered that the deposit be paid out to the respondents to account of their taxed costs.
________________________________________
Cases
Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343; Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497.
Representations
G Gunaseelan, T Gunaseelan and K Balaguru (G Gunaseelan & Associates) for Appellant
Salleh Abas, Sivarasa Rasiah and Kamarul Hisham (Daim & Gamany) for Respondents
1. Perayu adalah tuan punya berdaftar tanah yang dikenali sebagai HS (D) 66601 PT 2473 Mukim Setapak, Wilayah Persekutuan yang terdiri daripada 487.533 kaki persegi tanah (tanah tersebut). Perayu berkata tanah telah didaftarkan dalam nama perayu pada 6 Julai 1990. Pada masa yang itu semua empat responden dan beberapa orang lain, tinggal di atas tanah tersebut. Perayu membeli tanah itu dari STLR Sdn Bhd yang menjadi pemilik tanah tersebut pada Oktober 26, 1985. Sebelum tarikh itu, tanah itu milik Kerajaan.
2. Sebagai pemunya berdaftar, perayu memfailkan tuntutan terhadap empat responden yang mendakwa bahawa mereka adalah penceroboh dan meminta bagi pemilikan kosong, gantirugi dari 11 Oktober, 1993, sehingga penyerahan pemilikan kosong, ganti rugi bagi pencerobohan, faedah dan kos.
3. Responden menafikan bahawa mereka adalah penceroboh. Mereka berhujah bahawa mereka adalah penghuni yang sah di sisi undang-undang tanah tersebut sebagai pemegang lesen ditambah dengan ekuiti dan perayu tahu atau sepatutnya telah diketahui ekuiti. Mereka juga berhujah bahawa pendudukan berterusan mereka berkata tanah itu dikenali atau nyata dan / atau tersirat dibebaskan dan / atau digalakkan oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri dan / atau Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, yang terdahulu perayu.
4. Selepas perbicaraan yang terperinci dan panjang lebar, Hakim yang arif mengkaji di sudut kesan sejarah tanah tersebut, serta bukti-bukti yang dibawa datang untuk kesimpulan terhadap fakta-fakta di hadapannya, beliau berpuas hati bahawa responden tidak setinggan dan menduduki tanah sebagai pemegang lesen yang sah dan dengan persetujuan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri yang mereka boleh menduduki atau terus menduduki tanah tersebut.
5. Dalam pada itu, Hakim yang arif memberi pemilikan kosong kepada perayu tertakluk pampasan rumah-rumah empat responden untuk semua kos yang ditanggung dalam pembinaan dan pengubahsuaian rumah masing-masing, atau sebagai alternatif kos nilai semasa berkata akan dinilai oleh jurunilai bebas yang akan dipersetujui bersama oleh pihak-pihak atau jika mereka tidak bersetuju, yang hendaklah dilantik oleh mahkamah dan semua kos sampingan untuk menempatkan semula responden. Hakim yang arif juga menolak tuntutan perayu untuk ganti rugi khas atas alasan bahawa mereka belum terbukti dengan secukupnya.
6. Mengenai semakan rekod rayuan dan selepas menimbangkan penghujahan peguam kedua-dua pihak, kita mendapati bahawa diri kita perlu bersetuju dengan penemuan Hakim yang arif. Terdapat banyak bukti sebelum beliau membuat kesimpulan.
7. Isu utama sebelum mahkamah memutuskan adalah status responden sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut. Perayu menegaskan sepanjang tempoh itu bahawa responden adalah setinggan dan oleh itu mereka penceroboh ke atas tanah tersebut. Responden di sisi lain, tidak menuntut apa-apa hakmilik kepada tanah tersebut. Ini menunjukkan bahawa perayu adalah pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut adalah tidak boleh dipertikaikan. Responden manakala bersetuju bahawa perayu kini pemunya berdaftar, yang bertanding bahawa mereka tidak setinggan tetapi mereka menduduki tanah tersebut dengan lesen dalam ekuiti.
8. Jika dikaji isu tanah mempunyai sejarah imej pelbagai. Pada mulanya, tanah tersebut adalah tanah Rizab Melayu tetapi status itu telah dibatalkan. Berdasarkan kepada bukti tanah juruukur satu Seah Kok Seang, yang memberi keterangan sebagai saksi pakar, Hakim yang arif menerima keterangan pakar bahawa status Rizab Melayu diwartakan oleh Pemberitahuan Warta No 4851/1932 bertarikh 22 Jun, 1932. Ini telah disahkan dalam surat daripada Pengarah Tanah & Galian yang bertarikh 9 Februari, 1996.
9. Responden berhujah bahawa apabila perayu menjadi pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut, ia tahu atau sepatutnya telah diketahui ekuiti yang telah wujud lama sebelum ia menjadi pemilik. Responden juga menegaskan bahawa pendudukan berterusan mereka berkata tanah itu dikenali atau secara nyata atau tersirat dibebaskan dan / atau digalakkan oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri atau oleh Dewan Bandaraya.
10. Ia juga adalah bukti bahawa antara 1960 dan 1990 pelbagai kemudahan telah disediakan oleh pihak berkuasa seperti dewan perbandaran, tiga buah masjid, air dan bekalan elektrik, perkhidmatan telefon, klinik dan jalan raya berturap.
11. Dewan Bandaraya membina sebuah dewan masyarakat yang kedua dan sebuah bangunan untuk menjalankan aktiviti-aktiviti pembangunan wanita dan beberapa sekolah-sekolah agama. Responden juga membawa bukti untuk menunjukkan bahawa kampung ini, dipanggil Chubadak Tambahan iaitu kampung dikawal dan ditadbir oleh Jawatan Kuasa sendiri.
12. Terdapat juga bukti bahawa sebelum pembentukan Wilayah Persekutuan, Kerajaan Negeri Selangor telah membentuk sebuah badan yang dikenali sebagai Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (JKKK) di kampung ini yang diketuai oleh Ketua Kampung.
13. Apabila Wilayah Persekutuan telah ditubuhkan pada 1 Februari, 1970, JKKK telah digantikan oleh pegawai Dewan Bandaraya dan jawatan Ketua Kampung telah dimansuhkan. Walau bagaimanapun, pada tahun 1987, jawatan ini dihidupkan semula dan Kementerian Wilayah Persekutuan yang dilantik bekas Ketua Kampung untuk mentadbir kampung ini.
14. Pada tahun-tahun 1960-an, Pegawai Daerah Kuala Lumpur menyediakan pelan susun atur bagi tanah bekas perlombongan di mana Chubadak Tambahan dan Puah Seberang di mana kampung terletak, permohonan tanah kepada lot pelbagai yang akan diperuntukkan kepada penduduk ketika itu menduduki tanah tersebut.
15. Ia adalah pendirian responden bahawa antara 1960 dan 1990, pembesar-pembesar banyak membuat lawatan rasmi ke kampung ini dan mereka termasuk ahli-ahli politik dan Sultan. Malah semasa pelancaran rasmi Klinik Kesihatan Kanak-Kanak dan lbu di Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, Ketua Menteri, Datuk Harun ldris, menjanjikan bahawa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor akan mengambil langkah-langkah tertentu bagi membolehkan penduduk kampung dan bersebelahan kampung untuk mendapatkan hak milik tanah yang mereka menduduki.
16. Dengan ini, Hakim yang arif menilai fakta, bukan gimik politik semata-mata tetapi adalah berdasarkan keputusan ketika itu Majlis Eksekutif Negeri Selangor. Ia telah menegaskan bahawa Ketua Menteri tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mengikat Pihak Berkuasa Negeri dan janjinya tidak mencukupi. Hakim itu sedar akan hal Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497, di mana ia telah diadakan 'Pihak Berkuasa Negeri di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara ditakrifkan bagi maksud Selangor sebagai Sultan.
17. Tetapi di dalam kes ini Menteri ketika itu Ketua sebenarnya menyampaikan keputusan Majlis Eksekutif Negeri dan untuk semua tujuan yang praktikal Sultan mesti bertindak atas nasihat dan syor Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri. Pada tahun 1974 Ketua Menteri juga memberitahu penduduk bahawa Kerajaan Negeri akan mengeluarkan hakmilik kepada peneroka. Beliau juga merujuk kepada minit mesyuarat bertarikh 9 Disember, 1976, yang menunjukkan bahawa ada kelulusan yang diberikan oleh Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Negeri Selangor pada 9 Ogos, 1962, membahagikan tanah kepada penghuni Melayu yang tinggal di situ.
18. Selepas penubuhan Wilayah Persekutuan pada tahun 1974 dan pada Januari 10, 1976, Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan, yang bersamaan dengan Pesuruhjaya Negeri bagi Tanah dan Galian di negeri-negeri lain, bersetuju dengan nyata bahawa berkata kelulusan Selangor Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Negeri dijalankan oleh Pemungut Hasil Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan. Tidak ada bukti bahawa Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan telah diubah atau dibatalkan dasar berhubung dengan pendudukan penduduk Melayu di kampung Chubadak. Semua ini kekal tidak dicabar.
19. Setelah menjejaki sejarah tanah tersebut dan tentang bagaimana dan bila setiap responden datang ke atas tanah tersebut, dan mengambil kira keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, Yang Arif Hakim membuat kesimpulan bahawa responden tidak setinggan, sepertimana perayu telah cuba untuk membuat mereka menjadi setinggan. Beliau mendapati terdapat kebenaran dan lesen daripada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri bahawa responden boleh menduduki atau terus menduduki tanah tersebut.
20. Responden juga menetap berdasarkan kepada persetujuan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, galakan dan kelulusan, mereka berkembang wang dan buruh untuk memperbaiki dan memajukan lagi tanah di Chubadak Tambahan, yang merupakan bekas tanah lombong. Semua ini telah diketahui terdahulu perayu.
21. Oleh itu, berdasarkan keterangan di hadapan Hakim yang arif, responden membawa fakta dan kesimpulan seperti yang dilakukannya dan kami tidak mempunyai sebab untuk tidak bersetuju. Kami menolak rayuan itu dengan kos dan mengesahkan keputusan dan perintah Hakim yang arif dan juga diperintahkan bahawa deposit itu dibayar kepada responden untuk kos yang dikenakan.
________________________________________
Kes-kes
Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343; Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497.
Perwakilan
G Gunaseelan, T Gunaseelan dan K Balaguru (G Gunaseelan & Associates) bagi Perayu
Salleh Abas, Sivarasa Rasiah dan Kamarul Hisham (Daim & Gamany) untuk Responden
COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA
Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd - vs - Ahmad Amirudin Kamarudin
Coram
SHAIK DAUD JCA
SITI NORMA YAAKOB JCA
DENIS J.F. ONG JCA
21 AUGUST 2000
Judgment: Shaik Daud, JCA
(delivering the judgment of the court)
2. As the registered owner, the appellant filed a claim against the four respondents claiming that they were trespassers and prayed for vacant possession, mesne profits from October 11, 1993, until delivery of vacant possession, damages for trespass, interest and costs.
3. The respondents denied that they were trespassers. They contended that they were the lawful occupants of the said land as licensees coupled with equity and that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the equity. They also contend that their continuous occupation of the said land was known to or expressly and / or impliedly acquiesced and / or encouraged by the State Authority and / or the City Hall of Kuala Lumpur, the predecessors of the appellant.
4. After a full and lengthy trial in which the learned Judge traced the history of the said land, he came to the conclusion that on the facts before him, he was satisfied that the respondents were not squatters simpliciter but were in occupation of the said land as licensees and with the consent of the State Authority that they could occupy or continue to occupy the said land.
5. In the light of that finding, the learned Judge gave vacant possession to the appellant subject to the appellant compensating the four respondents for all costs incurred in the construction and renovation of their respective houses, or alternatively the costs of the present value of the said houses to be assessed by an independent valuer to be mutually agreed to by the parties or if they fail to agree, to be appointed by the court and all costs incidental to relocating the respondents. The learned Judge also rejected the appellant's claim for special damages on the ground that they have not been sufficiently proved.
6. On our perusal of the records of appeal and after considering the submissions of both learned counsel, we find ourselves unable to disagree with the findings of the learned Judge. There was ample evidence before him to arrive at those conclusions.
7. The central issue before the court was the status of the respondents as far as the said land is concerned. The appellant contended all along that the respondents were squatters simpliciter and therefore they were trespassers on the said land. The respondents on the other hand, are not claiming any title to the said land. That the appellant is the registered owner of the said land is undisputed. The respondents while conceding that the appellant is now the registered owner, are contending that they are not squatters simpliciter but they occupied the said land with a licence in equity.
8. The said land appeared to have a chequered history. Initially the said land was a Malay Reserve land but such status was cancelled. Based on the evidence of a land surveyor one Seah Kok Seang, who testified as an expert witness, the learned Judge accepted his expert testimony that the Malay Reservation status was degazetted by Gazette Notification No 4851/1932 dated June 22, 1932. This was confirmed in a letter from the Director of Lands & Mines dated February 9, 1996.
9. The respondents contend that when the appellant became the registered owner of the said land, it knew or ought to have known of the equity which had existed long before it became the owner. The respondents also contended that their continuous occupation of the said land was known to or expressly or impliedly acquiesced and / or encouraged by the State Authority or by the City Hall.
10. It is also in evidence that between 1960 and 1990 various amenities were provided by the authorities such as a town hall, three mosques, water and electricity supply, telephone services, a clinic and the roads were paved.
11. The City Hall built a second town hall and a building to conduct women's development activities and a number of religious schools. The respondents also led evidence to show that this village, called Chubadak village was self-governed and self-administered.
12. There was also evidence that prior to the formation of the Federal Territory, the Selangor State Government formed a body known as the Committee of Village Development and Security (CVDS.) in this village which was headed by the Village Head.
13. When the Federal Territory was established on February 1, 1970, the CVDS was replaced by City Hall officials and the post of Village Head was abolished. In 1987, however, this post was revived and the Ministry of the Federal Territory appointed the former Village Head to administer this village.
14. In the 1960s, the Kuala Lumpur District Officer prepared a layout plan for the former mining land at which Chubadak Tambahan village and Puah Seberang village are situated, the object of which was to sub-divide the said land into various lots which would be allocated to the then residents occupying the said land.
15. It is the contention of the respondents that between 1960 and 1990, many dignitaries made official visits to this village and they included politicians and royalties. In fact during the official launch of the Klinik Kesihatan Kanak-Kanak dan lbu in Chubadak Tambahan village, the then Chief Minister, Mr. Harun ldris, promised that the Selangor State Government would take certain measures to enable the residents of the village and an adjoining village to obtain ownership of the land they occupied.
16. This, the learned Judge found, was not a mere political gimmick but was based on a decision of the then Selangor State Executive Council. It was contended that the Chief Minister had no authority to bind the State Authority and his promise is insufficient. The Judge was mindful of the case of Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497, where it was held that 'State Authority' under the National Land Code is defined for the purpose of Selangor as the Ruler.
17. But in the present case the then Chief Minister was in fact conveying the decision of the State Executive Council and for all practical purposes the Ruler must act on the advice and recommendation of the State Executive Council. In 1974 the then Chief Minister also informed the residents that the State Government was going to issue separate titles to the settlers. He also referred to the minutes of a meeting dated December 9, 1976, which indicated that there was approval given by the State Executive Committee of Selangor on August 9, 1962, to alienate the said land to the Malay occupants residing in the land.
18. After the formation of the Federal Territory in 1974 and on January 10, 1976, the Land Executive Committee of the Federal Territory, which is the equivalent of the State Commissioners for Lands and Mines in other States, expressly agreed that the said approval of the Selangor State Executive Committee be carried out by the Collector of Land Revenue of the Federal Territory. There was no evidence that the Land Executive Committee of Federal Territory had changed or revoked its policy in relation to the occupation of the Malay residents of Chubadak village. All these remained unchallenged.
19. Having traced the history of the said land and as to how and when each of the respondents came to be on the said land, and considering the Federal Court decision in Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the respondents were not squatters simpliciter, as the appellant was trying to make them out to be. He found there was consent and licence from the State Authority that the respondents can occupy or continue to occupy the said land.
20. The respondents also established that based on the State Authority's acquiescence, encouragement and approval, they expanded money and labour to improve and further develop the land in Chubadak Tambahan, which was a former mining land. All these were known to the predecessors of the appellant.
21. Therefore, on the evidence before the learned Judge, he rightly came to the conclusion as he did and we have no reason to disagree. We dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the findings and orders of the learned Judge and also ordered that the deposit be paid out to the respondents to account of their taxed costs.
________________________________________
Cases
Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343; Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497.
Representations
G Gunaseelan, T Gunaseelan and K Balaguru (G Gunaseelan & Associates) for Appellant
Salleh Abas, Sivarasa Rasiah and Kamarul Hisham (Daim & Gamany) for Respondents
MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA
Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd - vs - Ahmad Amirudin Kamarudin
Coram
Shaik Daud JCA
Siti Norma Yaakob JCA
Denis J. 21 OGOS 2000
Penghakiman
Shaik Daud, JCA
(Menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah)
1. Perayu adalah tuan punya berdaftar tanah yang dikenali sebagai HS (D) 66601 PT 2473 Mukim Setapak, Wilayah Persekutuan yang terdiri daripada 487.533 kaki persegi tanah (tanah tersebut). Perayu berkata tanah telah didaftarkan dalam nama perayu pada 6 Julai 1990. Pada masa yang itu semua empat responden dan beberapa orang lain, tinggal di atas tanah tersebut. Perayu membeli tanah itu dari STLR Sdn Bhd yang menjadi pemilik tanah tersebut pada Oktober 26, 1985. Sebelum tarikh itu, tanah itu milik Kerajaan.
2. Sebagai pemunya berdaftar, perayu memfailkan tuntutan terhadap empat responden yang mendakwa bahawa mereka adalah penceroboh dan meminta bagi pemilikan kosong, gantirugi dari 11 Oktober, 1993, sehingga penyerahan pemilikan kosong, ganti rugi bagi pencerobohan, faedah dan kos.
3. Responden menafikan bahawa mereka adalah penceroboh. Mereka berhujah bahawa mereka adalah penghuni yang sah di sisi undang-undang tanah tersebut sebagai pemegang lesen ditambah dengan ekuiti dan perayu tahu atau sepatutnya telah diketahui ekuiti. Mereka juga berhujah bahawa pendudukan berterusan mereka berkata tanah itu dikenali atau nyata dan / atau tersirat dibebaskan dan / atau digalakkan oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri dan / atau Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, yang terdahulu perayu.
4. Selepas perbicaraan yang terperinci dan panjang lebar, Hakim yang arif mengkaji di sudut kesan sejarah tanah tersebut, serta bukti-bukti yang dibawa datang untuk kesimpulan terhadap fakta-fakta di hadapannya, beliau berpuas hati bahawa responden tidak setinggan dan menduduki tanah sebagai pemegang lesen yang sah dan dengan persetujuan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri yang mereka boleh menduduki atau terus menduduki tanah tersebut.
5. Dalam pada itu, Hakim yang arif memberi pemilikan kosong kepada perayu tertakluk pampasan rumah-rumah empat responden untuk semua kos yang ditanggung dalam pembinaan dan pengubahsuaian rumah masing-masing, atau sebagai alternatif kos nilai semasa berkata akan dinilai oleh jurunilai bebas yang akan dipersetujui bersama oleh pihak-pihak atau jika mereka tidak bersetuju, yang hendaklah dilantik oleh mahkamah dan semua kos sampingan untuk menempatkan semula responden. Hakim yang arif juga menolak tuntutan perayu untuk ganti rugi khas atas alasan bahawa mereka belum terbukti dengan secukupnya.
6. Mengenai semakan rekod rayuan dan selepas menimbangkan penghujahan peguam kedua-dua pihak, kita mendapati bahawa diri kita perlu bersetuju dengan penemuan Hakim yang arif. Terdapat banyak bukti sebelum beliau membuat kesimpulan.
7. Isu utama sebelum mahkamah memutuskan adalah status responden sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut. Perayu menegaskan sepanjang tempoh itu bahawa responden adalah setinggan dan oleh itu mereka penceroboh ke atas tanah tersebut. Responden di sisi lain, tidak menuntut apa-apa hakmilik kepada tanah tersebut. Ini menunjukkan bahawa perayu adalah pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut adalah tidak boleh dipertikaikan. Responden manakala bersetuju bahawa perayu kini pemunya berdaftar, yang bertanding bahawa mereka tidak setinggan tetapi mereka menduduki tanah tersebut dengan lesen dalam ekuiti.
8. Jika dikaji isu tanah mempunyai sejarah imej pelbagai. Pada mulanya, tanah tersebut adalah tanah Rizab Melayu tetapi status itu telah dibatalkan. Berdasarkan kepada bukti tanah juruukur satu Seah Kok Seang, yang memberi keterangan sebagai saksi pakar, Hakim yang arif menerima keterangan pakar bahawa status Rizab Melayu diwartakan oleh Pemberitahuan Warta No 4851/1932 bertarikh 22 Jun, 1932. Ini telah disahkan dalam surat daripada Pengarah Tanah & Galian yang bertarikh 9 Februari, 1996.
9. Responden berhujah bahawa apabila perayu menjadi pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut, ia tahu atau sepatutnya telah diketahui ekuiti yang telah wujud lama sebelum ia menjadi pemilik. Responden juga menegaskan bahawa pendudukan berterusan mereka berkata tanah itu dikenali atau secara nyata atau tersirat dibebaskan dan / atau digalakkan oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri atau oleh Dewan Bandaraya.
10. Ia juga adalah bukti bahawa antara 1960 dan 1990 pelbagai kemudahan telah disediakan oleh pihak berkuasa seperti dewan perbandaran, tiga buah masjid, air dan bekalan elektrik, perkhidmatan telefon, klinik dan jalan raya berturap.
11. Dewan Bandaraya membina sebuah dewan masyarakat yang kedua dan sebuah bangunan untuk menjalankan aktiviti-aktiviti pembangunan wanita dan beberapa sekolah-sekolah agama. Responden juga membawa bukti untuk menunjukkan bahawa kampung ini, dipanggil Chubadak Tambahan iaitu kampung dikawal dan ditadbir oleh Jawatan Kuasa sendiri.
12. Terdapat juga bukti bahawa sebelum pembentukan Wilayah Persekutuan, Kerajaan Negeri Selangor telah membentuk sebuah badan yang dikenali sebagai Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (JKKK) di kampung ini yang diketuai oleh Ketua Kampung.
13. Apabila Wilayah Persekutuan telah ditubuhkan pada 1 Februari, 1970, JKKK telah digantikan oleh pegawai Dewan Bandaraya dan jawatan Ketua Kampung telah dimansuhkan. Walau bagaimanapun, pada tahun 1987, jawatan ini dihidupkan semula dan Kementerian Wilayah Persekutuan yang dilantik bekas Ketua Kampung untuk mentadbir kampung ini.
14. Pada tahun-tahun 1960-an, Pegawai Daerah Kuala Lumpur menyediakan pelan susun atur bagi tanah bekas perlombongan di mana Chubadak Tambahan dan Puah Seberang di mana kampung terletak, permohonan tanah kepada lot pelbagai yang akan diperuntukkan kepada penduduk ketika itu menduduki tanah tersebut.
15. Ia adalah pendirian responden bahawa antara 1960 dan 1990, pembesar-pembesar banyak membuat lawatan rasmi ke kampung ini dan mereka termasuk ahli-ahli politik dan Sultan. Malah semasa pelancaran rasmi Klinik Kesihatan Kanak-Kanak dan lbu di Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, Ketua Menteri, Datuk Harun ldris, menjanjikan bahawa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor akan mengambil langkah-langkah tertentu bagi membolehkan penduduk kampung dan bersebelahan kampung untuk mendapatkan hak milik tanah yang mereka menduduki.
16. Dengan ini, Hakim yang arif menilai fakta, bukan gimik politik semata-mata tetapi adalah berdasarkan keputusan ketika itu Majlis Eksekutif Negeri Selangor. Ia telah menegaskan bahawa Ketua Menteri tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mengikat Pihak Berkuasa Negeri dan janjinya tidak mencukupi. Hakim itu sedar akan hal Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497, di mana ia telah diadakan 'Pihak Berkuasa Negeri di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara ditakrifkan bagi maksud Selangor sebagai Sultan.
17. Tetapi di dalam kes ini Menteri ketika itu Ketua sebenarnya menyampaikan keputusan Majlis Eksekutif Negeri dan untuk semua tujuan yang praktikal Sultan mesti bertindak atas nasihat dan syor Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri. Pada tahun 1974 Ketua Menteri juga memberitahu penduduk bahawa Kerajaan Negeri akan mengeluarkan hakmilik kepada peneroka. Beliau juga merujuk kepada minit mesyuarat bertarikh 9 Disember, 1976, yang menunjukkan bahawa ada kelulusan yang diberikan oleh Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Negeri Selangor pada 9 Ogos, 1962, membahagikan tanah kepada penghuni Melayu yang tinggal di situ.
18. Selepas penubuhan Wilayah Persekutuan pada tahun 1974 dan pada Januari 10, 1976, Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan, yang bersamaan dengan Pesuruhjaya Negeri bagi Tanah dan Galian di negeri-negeri lain, bersetuju dengan nyata bahawa berkata kelulusan Selangor Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Negeri dijalankan oleh Pemungut Hasil Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan. Tidak ada bukti bahawa Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan telah diubah atau dibatalkan dasar berhubung dengan pendudukan penduduk Melayu di kampung Chubadak. Semua ini kekal tidak dicabar.
19. Setelah menjejaki sejarah tanah tersebut dan tentang bagaimana dan bila setiap responden datang ke atas tanah tersebut, dan mengambil kira keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, Yang Arif Hakim membuat kesimpulan bahawa responden tidak setinggan, sepertimana perayu telah cuba untuk membuat mereka menjadi setinggan. Beliau mendapati terdapat kebenaran dan lesen daripada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri bahawa responden boleh menduduki atau terus menduduki tanah tersebut.
20. Responden juga menetap berdasarkan kepada persetujuan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri, galakan dan kelulusan, mereka berkembang wang dan buruh untuk memperbaiki dan memajukan lagi tanah di Chubadak Tambahan, yang merupakan bekas tanah lombong. Semua ini telah diketahui terdahulu perayu.
21. Oleh itu, berdasarkan keterangan di hadapan Hakim yang arif, responden membawa fakta dan kesimpulan seperti yang dilakukannya dan kami tidak mempunyai sebab untuk tidak bersetuju. Kami menolak rayuan itu dengan kos dan mengesahkan keputusan dan perintah Hakim yang arif dan juga diperintahkan bahawa deposit itu dibayar kepada responden untuk kos yang dikenakan.
________________________________________
Kes-kes
Bohari Taib v Pengarah Tanah & Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343; Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong Wooi Leong [1998] 1 AMR 497.
Perwakilan
G Gunaseelan, T Gunaseelan dan K Balaguru (G Gunaseelan & Associates) bagi Perayu
Salleh Abas, Sivarasa Rasiah dan Kamarul Hisham (Daim & Gamany) untuk Responden
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)