Arrival En Rashid Tasim legal Advisor for Kg Chubadak Tambahan RA
Dr Dominic Lau Future BATU MP Making noted while listening RA president briefing!
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)
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.
Representations
G Gunaseelan, T Gunaseelan
and K Balaguru (G Gunaseelan & Associates)
for Appellant
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
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
Press Statement - 20 April 2013
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
