SEMESTER II, 2007/2008 SESSION
AHMAD IBRAHIM KULLIYYAH OF LAWS
Programme : Bachelor of Laws Level of : Third
Reading Time : 2.30 p.m. – 2.45 p.m. Date : 24.3.2008
Duration : ( 15 minutes )
Answering Time : 2.45 p.m. – 5.45 p.m. Section(s) : All Sections
Duration ( 3 hours )
Course Title : Land Law I Course Code : LAW 3110
This Question Paper Consists of 7 Printed Pages With 6 Questions.
INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES
DO NOT OPEN UNTIL YOU ARE ASKED TO DO SO.
Answer FOUR (4) Questions Only.
National Land Code 1965 (Act 56)
Any form of cheating or attempt to cheat is a serious
offence which may lead to dismissal
Statutes should be free from any form of annotation.
a) The Torrens System of acquisition of title and interests in land by way of
registration was introduced in Malaysia to resolve problems posed by the English
Deeds system. Discuss the advantages of the Torrens system and how it helps to
reduce or diminish the problems caused by the Deeds system
b) Berat Semangat Sdn Bhd. (Berat Semangat Company) sold a large and heavy
machinery on a hire purchase basis to Ah Kuat Industries Sdn Bhd. (Ah Kuat
Company), Seberang Perai in January 2006. The machinery was subsequently
installed in the factory premises during the month of February and March of the
same year. Part of the machinery was secured to the floor of the factory by bolts and
nuts whilst the heavier part of the machinery was merely resting on the factory by
its own weight. In May 2006, Ah Kuat Company obtained a term loan of RM
500,000 from the CBB Bank (the Bank), Seberang Perai Branch. As a security for
the loan, the land where the factory premises were situated was charged to the
Bank. At the time the loan was granted by the Bank, no mention was made that the
machinery was still on hire purchase, but Ah Kuat Company was under the
impression that the Branch manager of the Bank knew of it. In December 2006, the
Bank was instructed by its Head Office to initiate foreclosure proceedings on the
land because Ah Kuat Company had defaulted in payment of 3 monthly
installments. Berat Semangat Company contended that the machine should not be
included in such proceeding.
Advise Berat Semangat Company as to their right over the machinery. Support your
answer with relevant statutory provision and decided cases.
a) Discuss the restrictions relating to the nature and extent of enjoyment of the
registered proprietor of alienated land as provided by the National Land Code 1965
Support your answer with relevant statutory provisions and decided case law.
b) Tae Woon received a qualified title for agricultural land from the Sepang land
office. It is stated on the title that the land is to be used for rubber plantation or any
other types of crops that does not yield low economic value. To his surprise, it is
also stated that he is permitted to use only 9 metres of the underground land. Tae
Woon wants to know whether the State Authority is permitted to impose such
restrictions upon landowners since his late father always tell him that whosoever
owns the land, he owns it up to the limitless sky and down to the centre of the earth.
Advise Tae Woon on the powers of the State Authority in imposing restrictions in
land alienation with reference to relevant statutory provisions and decided case law.
Merlion Development Bhd. (‘Merlion) bought a piece of a land held under the category
‘agriculture’ and was registered as the proprietor in 2000. One year later it constructed a
huge four-storey industrial complex on the land for the purpose of manufacturing tyres.
In June 2004, Merlion received a notice from the Land Administrator informing it as
i) That Merlion has committed a breach of condition on the land;
ii) That the breach arose in that:
(a) The use of the land for industrial purposes in breach of the category of land
use that is ‘agriculture’
(b) The four-storey building constructed on the land was in breach of an implied
condition under the National Land Code 1965.
iii) That Merlion was to appear before the Land Administrator on 15th September 2004
to show cause why a fine should not be imposed on it.
Merlion failed to send it’s representative to the land office on the hearing date. In October
2004, Merlion received another notice from the Land Administrator requiring it to appear
before the Land Administrator on 9th
February 2005 to show cause why the Land
Administrator should not declare the land to be forfeited by the State. Merlion however,
decided to ignore this notice. On 30th
July 2005, Merlion received another notice
informing it that it’s land has been declared forfeit to the State Authority and the
forfeiture is effective from the date stated in the notice.
Merlion now appeals to the High Court against the decision of the Land Administrator.
Merlion contends that the Land Administrator had not followed the proper procedure for
forfeiture and that the forfeiture provisions under the National Land Code, 1965 are
unconstitutional. The Land Administrator contends that the forfeiture proceedings were
proper and Merlion had appealed out of time.
Merlion seeks your advice to prepare a submission as to the proper procedure for
forfeiture in order to respond to the Land Administrator’s contention.
The Holy Qur’an has not prescribed any verses on land administration. It merely
provides verses on the principles to be complied with in distributing land in the event of
death (faraid) and land obtained during war.
Explain the principles expounded by the Muslim jurists that are now used as guiding
principles in land administration in Muslim countries.
Mr. Ah Fatt is claiming possession of the second-floor of a shop-house he owns. The
defendant, Dr. Kamica is in occupation of the said premise. Mr. Ah Fatt rented out the
said premise to Dr. Kamica, a dentist. Dr. Kamica had set up a clinic there and was
allowed to run her clinic for two years ‘plus a further two years option’ to extend the
tenancy in the agreement. Mr. Ah Fatt later entered into an agreement with another party
to sell the shop-lot. Upon finding out about the dealing, Dr. Kamica exercised her option
to extend the tenancy for a further two years and entered a caveat on the land to protect
her interest. Mr. Ah Fatt brought an action to evict Dr. Kamica.
Discuss the legal rights of both parties to the transaction and support your answer with
relevant statutory provision and decided cases.
a) Discuss the concept of fraud under section 340(2)(a) of the National Land Code
1965. Support your answer with statutory provision and decided cases.
b) Fahman applied to the land office in Gombak for a piece of land in Kuala Sungai
Pusu in January 2005. The land office sent him a letter informing him of the
approval of his application by the State Authority in August 2005. However,
Fahman, was not able to collect the issue document of title from the land office as
he had to go to Cairo to embark on his postgraduate diploma in Islamic Studies for
a duration of one year commencing in August 2005. Fahman appointed Amir, his
best friend who is also a lawyer as his agent to collect the issue document of title
after payment of premium to the land office and to keep the title safely on his
behalf. Upon returning to Malaysia in August 2006, he was shocked to discover that
Amir had forged his signature and transferred the land to his friend Hisman. Amir
and Hisman charged the land to Kuala Pusu bank for securing a loan of RM 2.5
Million for purposes of developing a mall on the land. Fahman argued that Amir
had acted in excess of the authority given to him as such the charge was defeasible.
Advise Fahman as to his legal rights. Support your answer with relevant statutory
provisions and decided case.