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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5 10 15 20 25 prematurely entered into possession of the land and claimed to have planted some 693.408 hectares of the land originally approved in principle for alienation with oil palm. The respondents had no authority to bind the State Authority even if permission to enter into possession, as alleged in the appellant‟s submission, had been granted by the respondents: see Lesco case, supra, Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors v The Government of the State of Perak & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 313, 314. The affidavit evidence shows that there was no written approval to support that contention. Notices in Form 5A [24] It is further contended that the State Authority is duty bound under the Code to issue the qualified titles after payment of land revenue was made to the first respondent. The contention is based on section 80(3) of the Code which states that, “upon payment of all fees the Registrar shall prepare, register and issue a qualified title in respect of the land”. The word “shall” in that subsection, it was submitted, makes it mandatory for the Registrar to issue the qualified title upon payment being made by the appellant pursuant to Form 5A notices, within the specified time. As 18
5 10 15 20 25 such the State Authority had no power to revoke the approval for alienation. [25] Upon a close scrutiny of the Code, it appears that there is no express provision therein which prohibits the State Authority to revoke or withdraw prior approval of alienation of State land before the registration of a register document of title. The wording of section 78(3) of the Code tends to suggest that such provision is not necessary. The need to revoke has not arisen as the land is still state land by virtue of the said section. The contention that the State Authority cannot revoke the approval for alienation of state land once approved goes against the grain of section 78(3) itself. The power to revoke is implicit in that subsection itself. It is absurd to say that the State Authority has lost control over the land after alienation when section 78(3) plainly states that it is still its land until registration. [26] Section 80(3) of the Code cannot be read in isolation. It must be viewed against the whole scheme of the Code. The purpose of section 80(3), which was introduced in 1984 by the National Land Code (Amendment) Act 1984 (Act A587) was to cut down unnecessary delay in the issuance of qualified titles once payment of the land revenue as specified in Form 5A had been made. Section 80(3) 19
Page 1 and 2: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 DALAM MAH
Page 3 and 4: 5 10 15 20 25 the land, which is th
Page 5 and 6: 5 10 15 20 25 [6] The application f
Page 7 and 8: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 MUKIM HUL
Page 9 and 10: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 applicants w
Page 11 and 12: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 DENGAN TA
Page 13 and 14: 5 10 15 20 25 (e) Damages; (f) Exem
Page 15 and 16: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 is mandatory in
Page 17: 5 10 15 20 25 30 been made. The def
Page 21 and 22: 5 10 15 20 25 previous state govern
Page 23 and 24: 5 10 15 20 25 that there is no evid
Page 25 and 26: 5 10 15 20 25 30 [34] What the appe
Page 27 and 28: 5 10 15 20 25 [38] There is ample a
Page 29 and 30: 5 10 15 20 25 [42] Similarly, in th

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?