Ong Swee Eng A132709 Task 3 1. Who actually represents State Authority?

According to section 5 of the National Land Code 1965, the interpretation of State Authority means the Ruler or the Governor of the State, as the case may be. This provision need to be read together with Paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 of the Federal Constitution where the ruler or governor must act on the advise of the State Executive Council. In order to solve the issue of who is the State Authority, in the case of Lebby Sdn Bhd v. Chong Wooi Leong & Anor1 where in this case, the plaintiff is a registered proprietor of land which previously owned by the Selangor State Authority. At the time of alienation, there are many houses were built on the land, where it was occupied by many people. The plaintiff negotiated with the occupiers and offered three schemes of settlement where most of the squatters families accepted it. However, there are some of the remaining occupiers who refused to vacate the land which brought the plaintiff to commenced civil suit. The defendants in this case argued that even though they had entered the land without any consent or licence, they had peaceful enjoyment and occupation without any interference from the State Authority and that the district officer allowed them to rebuild their houses on the land after applying for TOL based on promises made by the politician who promised to give them TOL. Justice Abdul Wahab held that in regards of the promises made by the state officials and politicians, Even the state government, let alone any Minister, Exco or politician, elected or not, as such, has nothing to do with these proceedings under the Code, which recognizes only the state authority. This case was adopted from several other cases like Government of Negeri Sembilan v Yap Chong Lan & Ors2 and the case of Sidek bin Haji Muhamad v. The Government of the State of Perak3.

1 2

[1998] 5 MLJ 368 [1984] 2 MLJ 123 3 [1982] 1 MLJ 313

2. If it happened that the State Authority is a Menteri Besar, can his generous promise binds the state? In my view, by referring to the case of Lebby Sdn Bhd v. Chong Wooi Leong & Anor4,which was discussed earlier on, it is clearly can be said that the promises made by the officials cannot be taken into account when they do not constitute as the meaning of State Authority under the National Land Code and the provision in the Federal Constitution.

3. Can you successfully raise the doctrine of equitable estoppels if the promise failed? The doctrine of equitable estoppels give protection to a party from being harmed by another party by his or her voluntary conduct in a case. As we know, the Section 6 of the Civil Law Act 1956 laid out the prohibitions on application of English land law and rules of equity in Malaysia. However, the equitable principles of general application are applicable to land matters in Malaysia so long as to the extent where they are not inconsistent with the general framework of the Torrens System in the National Land Code. the application of this doctrine can be seen in the case of Newbury District Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment5 where in this case, Lord Fraser held that the application of an estoppel is quite inappropriate in this field and that it would lead to confusion and also uncertainty. It was adopted in our Malaysian case, the Yap Chong Lan case where it is therefore said that the rule of equitable estoppels cannot be applied.

4 5

[1998] 5 MLJ 368 [1981] AC 578

4. Are there any limitations for this power? Support your reasons with cases. Limitations for this power vested by the State Authority can be seen in the Section 42 of the National Land Code 1956 in regards of powers of disposal in subsection (2) on the limitations of the powers. Subsection (2)6 stated that, nothing in this Act shall enable the State Authority (a) To dispose of any land for the purposes of any mining (within the meaning of the Mining Enactment); (b) To permit the extraction or removal of rock material from any land for the purpose of obtaining metal or mineral there-from; (c) to dispose of any land for the purpose of the removal of forest produce therefrom; or (d) to alienate land so as to have effect of less than two-fifths of a hectare of land subject to the category agriculture or to any condition requiring its use for any agricultural purpose being held more than one person or body, provided that the State Authority may, under exceptional circumstances, alienate such land to more than one person or body notwithstanding that it is less than two-fifths of a hectare. In the case of Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors v. the government of the State of Perak & Ors7, some of the appellants came to Telok Anson from Kedah, North Perak and Selangor and opened up a large part of a jungle area. They were squatters and it was said that there were article in the Utusan Melayu, quoted Bernama as the source, stating that the State Government was prepared to open up about 10 000 acres of land to be develop by the squatters. The learned judge in the High Court held that the squatters have no rights in law and equity as they illegally occupied the land and it was said that what Bernama did does not bind the government and also the rights to forfeit the land is given to the State Authority.

6 7

Section 42 of the National Land Code 1956 [1982] 1 MLJ 313