Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Person interested

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2025

1. ) HATIJAH BINTI IBRAHIM 2. ) DIYANA BINTI NORDIN 3. ) HALIMA BINTI IBRAHIM 4. ) SALASIAH BINTI IBRAHIM 5. ) MOHD SHAWAL BIN IBRAHIM 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak 2. ) TANIA RAHMAWATI BINTI YUSOF 3. ) MD ZIN BIN HAMID PENTADBIR HARTA

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2579-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2579-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because there are genuine disputed facts about ownership of the building and contributors to its construction (which determine entitlement to compensation), the matter is not suitable for decision on affidavits by originating summons; the court exercised its discretion under Order 28 Rule 8(1) to convert the originating summons into a writ and ordered plaintiffs to file a statement of claim and defendants to file pleadings so the disputes can be resolved with oral evidence.
11 Sept 2025

PRISTINE POWER SDN.BHD. Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah

Citation

BA-15-140-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-140-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

EKVE is permitted to intervene because the Scheduled Land was acquired for the EKVE project (s3(1)(b)), EKVE adduced evidence it will be ultimately liable for acquisition costs under the concession agreement (exceeding the RM360,000,000 threshold), and statutory amendments plus binding authority permit a paymaster/person with a real interest to intervene even if Form D does not specify the limb of s3 invoked.
23 Aug 2023

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PUTRAWALK PELANGI HOMES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-8-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-8-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court held that the Defendant, as registered proprietor at the date of acquisition, was rightly awarded the market value component (RM1,899,000) by the Land Administrator; however documentary evidence (forms and a 21-6-2017 letter) showed the RM500,000 award for 'pembaikan tanah' (land improvement, including demolition of the Putra Walk arch) belonged to the Management Corporation and therefore the Defendant must pay RM500,000 to the Plaintiff; allegations of fraud and unconscionable conduct were not proved and Plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to t…
9 Aug 2022

WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN. BHD. 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 2. ) Lim Wah Tian 3. ) PHIMA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD 4. ) FUKAR SDN BHD

Citation

BA-15-14-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-14-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the facts that the Applicant is the ultimate paymaster whose funds are used to pay compensation and therefore qualifies as a 'person interested' under s.2 read with s.37(1) and (3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960; accordingly the Applicant has locus standi to file the land reference and there was no abuse of process, so the striking out application failed.
15 Dec 2021

ABU BAKAR BIN ISAIL PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH LANGKAWI

Citation

KA-15-114-10/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-115-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-15-114-10/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-115-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because LADA was expressly named in the Gazette (Form D), was served with Form E and Form H, attended the Land Administrator's inquiry and filed Form N, the court held LADA satisfied the requirements to be a 'person interested' under section 37 read with related provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960; therefore LADA is entitled to object to the award and its Form N is valid.
15 Dec 2021

ABU BAKAR BIN ISMAIL PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH LANGKAWI

Citation

KA-15-7-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-8-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-15-7-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-8-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because LADA was expressly named in the Gazette declaration (Form D), was served with Form E and Form H (evidenced by affidavits and exhibits), attended the Land Administrator's inquiry, and filed a Form N objection, LADA satisfied the statutory and precedent requirements to be a "person interested" under ss 2, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 37 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960; consequently LADA is entitled to object to the award and its Form N is valid.
15 Dec 2021

ABDUL MANAB BIN HUSSAIN PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH LANGKAWI

Citation

KA-15-22-10/2020 digabungkan dengan KA-15-21-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-15-22-10/2020 digabungkan dengan KA-15-21-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

LADA is a 'person interested' under section 37 because it was expressly named in the Gazette (Form D), was served with Form E and Form H, attended the Land Administrator's inquiry and filed Form N; consequently LADA is entitled to object to the award and its Form N is valid.
16 Nov 2021

ABU BAKAR BIN ISMAIL PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH LANGKAWI

Citation

KA-15-23-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-24-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-15-23-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-24-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because LADA was expressly named in the Gazette (Form D), was served with Form E and Form H, attended the Land Administrator's inquiry and filed Form N, the court held LADA satisfied the statutory criteria to be a 'person interested' under s37 LAA 1960 and therefore is entitled to object to the award; the Form N filed by LADA is valid.
16 Nov 2021

ABU BAKAR BIN ISMAIL

Citation

KA-15-6-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-15-6-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

LADA is a "person interested" under section 37 because it was expressly named in the Gazette (Form D), was validly served with Form E and Form H, attended the Land Administrator's inquiry and thereafter filed Form N; those facts establish standing to object and render the Form N valid.
28 Apr 2021

1. BLUE VALLEY PLANTATION BHD. 2. PYLON RANGE SDN. BHD. PENTADBIR TANAH DAN DAERAH CAMERON HIGHLANDS

Citation

CB-15-13-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-15-13-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court increased the compensation to RM670,000.00 per hectare (total RM4,020,000.00) after applying First Schedule valuation principles and rejecting the proposed comparables and injurious affection claims due to lack of fit and evidence; the court held Section 9A planning information was conclusive that the land was in an infrastructure/utilities zone and that the registered proprietor (Blue Valley Plantation Bhd.) is the person entitled to the award, dismissing Pylon Range's claim to compensation despite its caveat.