Adzhar Bin Mohd Nordin 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 3. ) STIGMA EMAS SDN BHD 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 5. ) Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG) PIHAK KETIGA Landserve Sdn Bhd

Adzhar Bin Mohd Nordin 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 3. ) STIGMA EMAS SDN BHD 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 5. ) Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG) PIHAK KETIGA Landserve Sdn Bhd

Acknowledgement by Plaintiff's letter dated 15.3.2007 restarted the limitation period so CIMB's foreclosure proceedings were within time; Plaintiff failed to invoke exclusive appeal remedy under s.418 NLC and cannot collaterally attack the Land Administrator's Order for Sale in this suit; gazettement alone did not bar the Order for Sale or auction because acquisition did not vest until Form K/memorial and formal possession; compensation award to the bidder who had fully paid was valid; no proximity existed to impose a duty of care on valuers to the Plaintiff and the valuation methodology was acceptable, therefore negligence claim failed.

Citation
BA-21NCvC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (administrator of Estate of Mohd Nordin Bin Yaakob): Adzhar bin Mohd Nordin; Defendant 1: Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat; Defendant 2: Jabatan Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor; Defendant 3 (jkptg): Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah dan Galian (Persekutuan) Negeri Selangor; Defendant 4: CIMB Bank Berhad; Defendant 5: Stigma Emas Sdn Bhd; Third Party / Defendant (valuers): Landserve Sdn Bhd; Defendant (in Suit 429): Tan Kim Seng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 May 2024
Case Number
BA-21NCvC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Foreclosure, Land Acquisition and Negligence Claims / Judgment (final)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims in both suits dismissed; compensation paid out to successful bidder; costs awarded to defendants as ordered.
Legal Topics
Foreclosure, Order for Sale, Public Auction, Compulsory Acquisition, Compensation Assessment, Appeal Under S.418 National Land Code, Limitation Period (limitation Act 1953), Acknowledgement of Debt, Duty of Care for Valuers, Valuation Methodology
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Land Acquisition Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Tort (negligence) Limitations Law Foreclosure Order for Sale +8 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adzhar bin Mohd Nordin

Plaintiff (administrator of Estate of Mohd Nordin Bin Yaakob)

Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat

Defendant 1

Jabatan Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor

Defendant 2

Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah dan Galian (Persekutuan) Negeri Selangor

Defendant 3 (jkptg)

CIMB Bank Berhad

Defendant 4

Stigma Emas Sdn Bhd

Defendant 5

Landserve Sdn Bhd

Third Party / Defendant (valuers)

Tan Kim Seng

Defendant (in Suit 429)

Procedural Posture

Civil Foreclosure, Land Acquisition and Negligence Claims / Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether foreclosure proceedings by CIMB were time-barred under Limitation Act 1953 s.21(1)
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff should have appealed under s.418 National Land Code instead of suing in High Court
  3. 3 Whether Order for Sale and public auction were null and void because land was gazetted for compulsory acquisition

Ratio Decidendi

Acknowledgement by Plaintiff's letter dated 15.3.2007 restarted the limitation period so CIMB's foreclosure proceedings were within time; Plaintiff failed to invoke exclusive appeal remedy under s.418 NLC and cannot collaterally attack the Land Administrator's Order for Sale in this suit; gazettement alone did not bar the Order for Sale or auction because acquisition did not vest until Form K/memorial and formal possession; compensation award to the bidder who had fully paid was valid; no proximity existed to impose a duty of care on valuers to the Plaintiff and the valuation methodology was acceptable, therefore negligence claim failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims in both suits dismissed; compensation paid out to successful bidder; costs awarded to defendants as ordered.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim in Suit 36 is dismissed against all the Defendants
  • The claim by 4th Defendant against Third Party in Suit 36 is dismissed