1. ) BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA PUNCAK HIJAUAN SETIA (MEWAKILI 434 PEMBELI/PEMUNYA PETAK PANGSAPURI PUNCAK HIJAUAN SETIA) 2. ) Kewira Jaya Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PULAU PINANG 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Barat Daya Pulau Pina

PA-25-15-03/2019 Kand. 243 30/05/2022 11:09:50 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG PERMOHONAN BAGI SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO. PA-25-15-03/2019 Dalam perkara mengenai hak dan kepentingan 434 pemilik unit perumahan yang dikenali sebagai Pangsapuri Puncak Hijauan Setia di atas hartanah yang dipegang di bawah Lot 20359, Geran 170440, Mukim 10, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai perubahan laluan keluar masuk pelan permohonan kebenaran merancang Fairview Residence yang dibangunkan di atas tanah bersebelahan iaitu Lot-Lot 586 dan 675, Mukim 10, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai perubahan laluan keluar masuk Fairview Residence yang mengakibatkan pengambilan tanah ke atas sebahagian dari Pangsapuri Puncak Hijauan Setia; Dan Dalam Perkara pengambilan tanah untuk “pembangunan ekonomi di bawah perenggan 3 (1)(b) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 [Akta 486] iaitu untuk Laluan Masuk” Fairview Residence; S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 1 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Dan Dalam perkara hak asasi ke atas harta mengikut Fasal 3 Perlembagaan Persekutuan; Dan Dalam perkara Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Semakan Kehakiman menurut Aturan 53 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 23 (2), Seksyen 25 (2) dan perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 ANTARA 1. BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA PUNCAK HIJAUAN SETIA (Mewakili 434 pembeli/pemunya petak Pangsapuri Puncak Hijauan Setia) 2. KEWIRA JAYA SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 504851-V) ….. PEMOHON-PEMOHON DAN 1. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PULAU PINANG 2. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH BARAT DAYA PULAU PINANG 3. KERAJAAN NEGERI PULAU PINANG 4. ICON ATTRACTIONS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1112306-P) ….. RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 2 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] The 4th respondent vide – 1.1 Enclosure 114 pursuant to Order 42 rule 8 and/or Order 53 rule 2 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“RC 2012”) and/or under the power and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeks for the following orders: (a) Bahawa gantirugi akibat Perintah Penggantungan prosiding pengambilan tanah yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini mulai 24.4.2019 sehingga 27.1.2021 yang mana tidak dirujuk atau dinyatakan dalam keputusan Mahkamah yang diberikan pada 27.1.2021 menerusi emel ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan dibayar oleh Pemohon-Pemohon; (b) Bahawa draf Perintah bertarikh 27.1.2021 dipinda dan / atau memasukkan klausa berikut:- “Gantirugi untuk ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan dibayar oleh Pemohon-Pemohon akibat Perintah Penggantungan Providing Pengambilan Tanah mulai 24.4.2019.”. (c) Kos Permohonan ini; dan (d) Perintah-Perintah lanjutan dan/atau relif-relif Iain yang dianggap adil dan suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini. 1.2 Enclosure 125 pursuant to Order 92 rule 4 of RC 2012 and/or under the power and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeks for the following orders: (a) Bahawa urusan pengambilan tanah yang terhenti akibat Perintah Penggantungan bertarikh 24.4.2019 dikembalikan kepada Responden Kedua untuk meneruskan dengan siasatan dan/atau prosiding lanjut dalam Pengambilan tersebut serta apa-apa juga tindakan lanjutan lain yang berkenaan Pengambilan S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 3 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tersebut dan dalam hal ini tempoh dari 24.4.2019 sehingga 27.1.2021 di mana Pengambilan Tanah tersebut digantung oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini tidak diambil kira untuk tujuan pengiraan tempoh dua (2) tahun yang ditetapkan di Seksyen 8 (4) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; (b) Bahawa tempoh Perintah Penggantungan (Ex-parte) bertarikh 24.4.2019 hingga keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi pada 27.1.2021 tidak diambil kira dalam pengiraan tempoh dua (2) tahun yang diperuntukkan di Seksyen 8(4) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; (c) Bahawa siasatan dan/atau prosiding lanjut dalam Pengambilan Tanah tersebut serta apa-apa juga tindakan lanjutan lain yang berkenaan Pengambilan Tanah tersebut diteruskan oleh Responden Pertama, Responden Kedua dan Responden Ketiga dan tempoh dari Perintah Penggantungan (Ex-parte) bertarikh 24.4.2019 hingga keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi pada 27.1.2021 tidak diambil kira dalam pengiraan tempoh dua (2) tahun yang diperuntukkan di Seksyen 8 (4) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; (d) Kos permohonan; dan (e) Perintah-perintah lanjutan dan/atau relif-relif lain yang dianggap adil dan suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini. [2] Having heard both the applications I dismissed Enclosure 114 and allowed Enclosure 125 paragraph (b) with no order as to costs. The 4th respondent appeals against my decision in Enclosure 114 while the applicants appeal against my decision in Enclosure 125. S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 4 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Background facts [3] The applicants had filed an application for judicial review challenging the decision of the respondents to acquire a portion of the land belonging to the 2nd applicant where Puncak Hijauan Condominium also known as Setia Pinaccle is erected thereon. The said land is being acquired pursuant to subsection 3(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (“the Act”) to construct an access road for a neighbouring development known as Fairview Residence. The applicants cited non-compliance with the strict provisions and procedural requirements prescribed under the Act and infringement of Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution as grounds for the judicial review. The proceedings of the proposed acquisition has reached the enquiry stage subsequent to the issuance of Form F and the said enquiry was adjourned midway owing to the judicial review application. [4] The High Court in allowing the leave application on 24.4.2019 had allowed a stay of the acquisition proceedings until the disposal of the judicial review application. On 27.1.2021 the learned High Court judge dismissed the judicial review application on some preliminary issues without deciding on its merits. The learned judge held that the application for judicial review was premature and that the 1st applicant had no locus. The applicants thereafter filed an appeal which is pending before the Court of Appeal. [5] The applicants vide Enclosure 94 sought to stay all further proceedings in the compulsory acquisition of the said land pending the disposal of the said appeal. Having heard the parties, I allowed the said application (prayer 1) with no order as to costs on 23.8.2021. The 4th respondent being dissatisfied with my decision has filed an appeal which is also pending before the Court of Appeal. S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 5 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Enclosure 114 [6] The 4th respondent seeks to insert a clause in the draft order for damages to be assessed to be paid by the applicants resulting from the order of dismissal of the judicial review application by the learned judge on 27.1.2021 covering the period from 24.4.2019 until 27.1.2021. [7] The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that based on the decision of the learned judge dismissing the judicial review application on 27.1.2021, the 4th respondent should be entitled to damages for the losses incurred owing to the order of the stay. The alleged damages would be in the form of delay in obtaining the Certificate of Completion and Compliance and Liquidated Ascertained Damages from the purchasers on late delivery of vacant possession, suspension of construction and loss of profits. [8] It was further submitted that the order has not been perfected therefore this Court is not functus officio and he urged this Court to allow the insertion of the said clause. In support, she referred to inter alia Commercial Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd v. Lim Chin Cheap & Ors [2002] 4 CLJ 694, Sang Lee Co Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Munusamy a/l Karuppiah (sole proprietor of MNN Consultancy Services, a firm) [2010] 5 MLJ 285 and Order 48 rule 2 RC 2012. [9] The learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that when the stay was granted by the learned judge, the respondents did not apply to set it aside nor raise the issue of damages in their submissions during the hearing of the judicial review application. She referred to Order 53 rules 2(3) and (5) and submitted that these provisions are not available to the 4th respondent. References were made to R Rama Chandran v. Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 147 and Maria Chin Abdullah v. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] 1 MLJ 750 which held that monetary compensation referred to in rule 2(3) is constitutional compensation awarded as a result of breach of the subject’s fundamental rights by the government. She further submitted that no inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to override specific rule. She referred to Order 32 rule 6 RC 2012 which provides for setting aside of the leave which the respondents failed to apply. Reference was made to among others the case of Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v. Bong Boon Chuen & Ors [2009] 6 CLJ 405. S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 6 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [10] As regards the order of the Court which has yet to be perfected, the learned counsel argued that there is no error to be corrected and the issue of damages was not even raised by any of the respondent during submissions either oral or written. She referred to Lembaga Pengelola Sekolah Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (C) Chiao Ching & 3 Ors v. Jemaah Pengurusan Tadika Chiao Ching & 2 Ors [2019] 2 MLRA 280. She further referred to Commercial Plastic Industries (supra) where at the time when the order was handed down it was not intended that any damages to be ordered against the applicants. Decision [11] The draft order was prepared by the solicitors for the 4th respondent and approved by the solicitors for the applicants. Subsequently the solicitors for the 4th respondent informed the solicitors for the applicants that the solicitors for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents inserted the said clause in the draft order. The solicitors for the applicants objected to it. The parties attempted to seek clarification from the learned judge. However, as the learned judge was already on leave prior to retirement she instructed the learned Deputy Registrar to inform the parties to take the matter up with her successor. [12] The issue of damages is averred to by the deponent of enclosure 18 in paragraph 51.4. But none of them addressed this in the course of submissions either orally or in writing. I agree with the contention of the applicants that the respondents in particular the 4th respondent had abandoned it. Zabariah JCA (as she then was) at p.305 in Lembaga Pengelola Sekolah Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (C) Chiao Ching & 3 Ors (supra) said – “In view that the issue on general damages was never addressed in the court below, and the basis of granting such order was never in the grounds of judgment of the learned trial judge, the order in granting general damages is unsubstantiated and should not have been ordered. The learned trial judge did not address her mind on the issue of general damages at all in her grounds. Before us, the issue was not taken up by the plaintiffs ’counsel in their submissions, we take it that the plaintiffs had abandoned the relief. Therefore, we set aside the order for general damages.”. S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 7 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Therefore, the respondents cannot complain now that I should allow the claim for damages. There was nothing to show that the learned judge considered this when she delivered her decision then as well as in her written grounds. Thus, I do not think I can agree that there was an error or omission on her part to pronounce that the respondents were entitled to damages. It is my view that notwithstanding that the order is not perfected, I do not think I can add the said prayer in the draft order. In this circumstance I cannot substitute or add anything to her decision as well as her judgement. [13] I would like to add here, to begin with, Order 53 subrule 2(3) and subrule 5(1) RC 2012 specifically refer to the applicant and no one else. The applicant is the one who is adversely affected by the decision of the public authority. I found no authority to enable a respondent to come within this provision. Hence, even if it was raised before the learned judge, I do not think she could award any damages to the 4th respondent or any of the respondents. Further the order for stay was decreed by this Court and it was a valid order. There was no attempt to set it aside and I doubt very much whether a claim for damages can be founded on a valid order of the Court. [14] Therefore, I dismissed Enclosure 144 no order as to costs. Enclosure 125 [14] The 4th respondent seeks for an order that the 2nd respondent to re- commence the enquiry under section 12 of the Act and that the period of the stay order to be excluded for the purposes of subsection 8(4) of the Act. [15] As alluded to earlier the learned judge granted the stay order from 24.4.2019 until 27.1.2021. Section 8(4) provides – “A declaration under subsection (1) shall lapse and cease to be of any effect on the expiry of two years after the date of its publication in the Gazette in so far as it relates to any land or part of any land in respect of which the Land Administrator has not made an award under subsection 14(1) within the said period of two years, and, accordingly, all proceedings already taken or being taken in consequence of such declaration in respect of such land or such part of the land shall terminate and be of no effect.”. S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 8 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The date of the publication in the Gazette is 22.11.2018. The acquisition process should be completed by 21.11.2020. However, the enquiry was halted when the stay order was granted. I agree that the 2-year period had come to an end. But be that as it may, nobody was at fault when acquisition process was not able to be completed. [16] The learned counsel for the 4th respondent referred to section 11A of the then Indian Land Acquisition Act 1894 which was similarly worded but came with an explanation that reads – “Explanation — In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.”. She pointed out that when the Act was amended to insert subsection (4) in section 8 the Government chose not to include the explanation provision. Premised upon this, she urged this Court to give a literal interpretation which would result in the acquisition to be terminated. Decision [17] In is my judgment that it would make no difference if the explanation was excluded when subsection (4) was inserted. A stay can only be granted by the Court and it remains valid until it is set aside. It legally puts a halt to the acquisition process as the said acquisition is being challenged. Obviously if the applicants did not ask for the stay the land Administrator will proceed with the enquiry and makes the award. The recourse available is either by way of a land reference or/and judicial review to quash the said acquisition – see Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kuantan v. Oriental Rubber & Palmoil Sdn Bhd [1986] 1 MLJ 39. [18] Here applicants asked for stay when the leave application was made and it was allowed by the learned judge hence I do not think it is right for the applicants to resist the exclusion of the duration of the stay for purposes of subsection 8(4) of the Act. In contending that subsection 8(4) be read literally the applicants are asking this Court to pronounce that the acquisition has lapsed or terminated which I think will result in injustice to the State. In fact, the Federal Court in Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ors [2021] 1 MLJ 180 has held that subsection 8(4) of the Act should be read purposively. I agree that in this respect the applicants are approbating and reprobating when they S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 9 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal asked for the stay and at the same time take the stand that the process of acquisition has lapsed. They cannot have the best of both of worlds. See PB Securities Sdn Bhd v. Autoways Holding Bhd [2000] 4 CLJ 811. [19] Nevertheless, I agree that I should not allow the Land Administrator to re-commence the enquiry (relief (a)) or the State to proceed with the process of acquisition (relief (b)) as that will go against my decision in Enclosure 94. [20] Therefore I allowed Enclosure 125 relief (a) with no order as to costs. (TUN ABD MAJID BIN TUN HAMZAH) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya, Pulau Pinang Tarikh: 30 Mei 2022 S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 10 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Peguamcara-Peguamcara:- Peguamcara Pihak Pemohon-Pemohon TETUAN LEE HISHAMMUDDIN ALLEN & GLEDHILL Peguambela dan Peguamcara Aras 6, Menara 1 Dutamas Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 KUALA LUMPUR Tel : 03-62085888 Faks : 04-62010122 Peguamcara Pihak Responden Pertama TETUAN PRESGRAVE & MATTHEWS Peguambela dan Peguamcara Tingkat 1, 2 Lebuh Pantai 10300 PULAU PINANG Tel : 04-2626155 Faks : 04-2626160/8373 Peguamcara Pihak Responden Kedua, Responden Ketiga dan Responden Keempat PENASIHAT UNDANG-UNDANG NEGERI PULAU PINANG Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Aras 10, Bangunan Persekutuan Jalan Anson 10400 PULAU PINANG Tel : 04-2275944 Faks : 04-2285644 S/N rKqNDQL4JEix1/24hGhkAw 11 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal