ABDUL LATIFF BIN PUTEH & 347 YANG LAIN 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Pasir Mas 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

ABDUL LATIFF BIN PUTEH & 347 YANG LAIN 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Pasir Mas 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

Trees planted by appellants on unalienated state land became part of the land under section 5 of the National Land Code; appellants held no proprietary or equitable interest in the trees because there was no alienation, contract or pleaded estoppel, therefore tort and unjust enrichment causes of action against the State are unsustainable and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
D-01(IM)(NCvC)-261-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellants: Abdul Latif Bin Puteh & 347 Others; Respondents: Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Pasir Mas; Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Case Number
D-01(IM)(NCvC)-261-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Determination on Strike‑out Application (judgment of Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with nominal costs
Legal Topics
Ownership of Vegetation/fixtures, Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012, Interpretation of National Land Code S5 and S341, Proprietary Estoppel, Conversion and Chattels Vs Land
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Civil Procedure Equity Tort Unjust Enrichment Ownership of Vegetation/fixtures Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 Interpretation of National Land Code S5 and S341 +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Latif Bin Puteh & 347 Others

Appellants

Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Pasir Mas; Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Determination on Strike‑out Application (judgment of Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rubber trees planted on unalienated state land constitute part of the land under section 5 of the National Land Code and therefore cannot be treated as chattels separable from the land
  2. 2 Whether the appellants had any legal or equitable proprietary interest in the rubber trees absent alienation, contract or pleaded estoppel
  3. 3 Whether causes of action in negligence, conspiracy and unjust enrichment against the Respondents are sustainable given lack of proprietary interest in the trees

Ratio Decidendi

Trees planted by appellants on unalienated state land became part of the land under section 5 of the National Land Code; appellants held no proprietary or equitable interest in the trees because there was no alienation, contract or pleaded estoppel, therefore tort and unjust enrichment causes of action against the State are unsustainable and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with nominal costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with nominal costs