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

5
10
15
20
25
[36] It had not been shown to us that the denial of a right of
fair hearing or the opportunity to make representation,
which Lord Diplock referred to as “procedural impropriety”
would entitle the appellant to the actual substance of the
expectation, which in this case, is the qualified titles to the
said lots. No case was cited to us in support thereof. The
basis of the appellant‟s contention here is that it had a
legitimate expectation to the titles of the said lots by reason
of section 80(3) of the Code after having made the payment
as specified in Form 5A notices, within time. In short, the
appellant insisted that the respondents must perform their
duty by issuing titles to the said lots.
[37] In our judgment, this proposition cannot be sustained
in the face of expressed provision in section 78(3) of the
Code. Section 80(3) of the Code should not be considered
in isolation. It must be viewed in the context of the whole
scheme of the Code. The land law, which is codified in the
Code is based on a system of registration. Section 40 of the
Code vests the entire property of all state land in the State
Authority. Section 78(3) states that alienation of state land
shall only take effect upon the registration of a register
document of title. The appellant does not acquire
indefeasible title to the land under section 340 of the Code
until it is registered in its name.
26