S Kulasingam Court CASE Review PDF

Preview

Summary

S Kulasingam & Anor v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 204 Written by : HAZREE TAJUDDIN, 2017Plaintiff - S. Kulasingam & Anor Defendant - Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & OrsFact of Case Plaintiff is a sporting and cultural body kn...

Description

S Kulasingam & Anor v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 204 Written by : HAZREE TAJUDDIN, 2017 Plaintiff - S. Kulasingam & Anor Defendant - Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors Fact of Case Plaintiff is a sporting and cultural body known as a Tamilians' Physical Culture Association (T.P.C.A.). The subject land granted to TCPA for use of recreational ground. Then, TCPA made a sports stadium with turfed hockey, football field, tennis court and others on that particular land which can be used by public. However, the Government commenced to acquire that land which stated in the Gazette Notification dated May 21, 1981 for the purpose of building a hockey stadium. The Government then proceeded with the various steps and in fact served certain forms of notices on the plaintiff. However, when the plaintiff took out a summons in chambers on July 24,1981, the defendant discovered that plaintiff has not received a notation of the intended acquisition as required under Land Acquisition Act, (LAA) 1960. Issues (High Court) In the high court, plaintiff had dragged down several issues. First, plaintiff claimed that he should be given a pre acquisitive hearing before authority made the decision to acquire the land. Second, plaintif also argue that Sec 3 (LAA,1960) not consistent with Article 8(1) of Federal Constitution. Third, plaintiff also argues that why the Government is allowed to acquire the land for the purpose which same purpose of land currently be used. Lastly, plaintiff said that defendant failure to comply with Sec 9(1) (LAA,1960) to make note of intended acquisition in the register document of title. Held ( Judgement by Hashim Yeop A. Sani) First, the judge stated that on article 13 (2) Federal Constitution, pre acquisition hearing is not required to be held, the most important to be required is a provision for adequate compensation. Secondly, in his view, the Sec 3 (LAA,1960) is not inconsistent with Article 8(1) of Federal Constitution. Thirdly, he also added that, Government will be much better positioned than the plaintiff to cater for the needs of publics in providing the sport and recreational facilities in that acquisition. Lastly, he stated that Sec 9(1)(b) is not mandatory. Therefore, failure to comply with it does not invalidate the acquisition proceeding. Then, the plaintiff appealed to the Federal Court.

Held ( Judgement by Abdool Cader) Firstly, judge had underlined that the right prescribed under the Federal Court only right to gain adequate compensation and not the right of pre acquisition hearing. Secondly, although the hockey stadium had been established on the land, the hockey stadium not totally for a public purpose as the use was for the association and subject to payment fees. Therefore, the judge stated that the land could be acquired by the Government. Lastly, the provisions of section 9(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act are directory and not mandatory. Conclusion Appeal dismissed....