bidang kuasa rayuan - Laman Web Rasmi Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar ...

5
10
15
20
25
30
been made. The defendant nevertheless withdrew its earlier
approval and refunded the payment. Razak J said:
“It is a fact that although the land had been approved for
alienation, it had never been registered. The land, in other
words, is still State land and the plaintiff‟s have no title to it.
The defendant could therefore repossess it at any time they so
choose”.
The appellant however sought to distinguish the abovesaid
case on the ground that section 80 of the Code at that time
was different from the current section 80(3) of the Code and
that the issue of legitimate expectation was not canvassed
in that case.
[23] In our judgment, all the abovesaid cases reaffirmed
what the legislature had, in clear words, enacted that the
lands remain as State land unless and until registration, or
as in this case, until they are registered in the appellant‟s
name. There is no doubt that the process of alienation had
not been completed. The document of titles had not been
issued to the appellant. Being state land, it is, by virtue of
section 40(a) of the Code still vested solely in the State
Authority. Section 48 of the Code makes it clear that no
title to State land shall be acquired by possession, unlawful
occupation or occupation under any licence for any period
whatsoever. It is immaterial whether the appellant had
17