Authorities For Adverse Possession In Land Law Malaysia

Adverse possession

- Other powers of state land. 

Adverse possession against state land – s.48

Against private land – s.341

Adverse possession – the longer a person stays on the land, the more it becomes his or her land.

S.425 – unlawful occupation

1. Sidek bin Haji Muhammad & Ors v Govt of the State of Perak & Ors

- the title to State land can only be acquired by alienation and not otherwise. Such alienation must be effected in accordance with the provisions in the statute.

2. Government of Negeri Sembilan v Yap Chong Lan

- strengthens the point of s.48. Squatters do not own land. Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 – evict squatter. Summary possession.

3. Sidek bin Haji Muhammad & Ors v Govt of the State of Perak & Ors

The appellants went to Perak to open up a large part of the jungle area. They met with the government officers and there was a promise by the officers that each family will receive 5 areas of paddy land. Some squatters were given 3 acres and others including the appellant didn’t get any. Appellants were asked to vacate the land.

Held: Appellant had no cause of action against the respondents. Squatters have no right at all in law and in equity. S.48 was quoted. S.78 – land not alienated then too bad. S.425 – offence for unlawful occupation. Equity couldn’t apply.

4. Bohari bin Taib & Ors v PTG Selangor – procedures on the eviction of squatters is order 89 of the ROC 2012.

5. Tetuan Tokoyaki Property Sdn Bhd v Sam Kok Sang

- Even if you were given certain facilities, it doesn’t indicate that they recognize your ownership.

i) Mere applying to the State Authority for land doesn’t grant a licence from the State Authority to live or continue to live on the land.

ii) An illegal squatter has no protection in law or in equity to enable him to claim a right to live or continue to live on the lot. Merely erecting a building on the lot and occupying it doesn’t create any right or equity against the rightful land owner.

iii) Mere payment of assessment for the first defendant’s house doesn’t impliedly give him the permission or consent to continue to live on the lot as the charge is imposed by the local authority because ss. 127 and 163(1) of the Local Government Act 1976 empowers the local authority to impose charges.

iv) By providing water, electricity and litter bins, it doesn’t mean that the State Authority had impliedly given the first defendant permission to live or continue to live on the said lot.

Note: Compensation may be given by the government to squatters although it is not compulsory legally.

6. Government of the State of Negeri Sembilan v Yap Chong Lan & Ors

Issue: whether the respondents have acquired equitable interest/right to remain on the lots?

1. The collector has no authority to bind the State Authority.

2. No equitable estoppel in public law. Cannot use against the Public Authority in exercising its powers.

There was a promise by the collector to allow the respondents to stay on the land. The promise was for a 99 years lease. Held: Collector has no right to bind the SA.

S. 78(3)

7. UMBC v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota Tinggi

Privy Council – no intervention by equity. NLC is complete and comprehensive. Cannot apply equity to NLC.

- If want to apply equity, only apply it in private ownership. No reason to extend it to public law of planning and control where it binds everyone.

8. Chong Wooi Leong & Ors v Lebbey Sdn Bhd

Politician promised to give TOL to certain people during election. Promise is not binding

9. Muniandy a/l Subramaniam & Ors v Majlis Perbandaran Langkawi Bandaraya Pelancongan & Anor

- About a temple that existed since 1928, i.e. before state government acquired the land. The status of the land was reverted back to State land. Temple had to be demolished.