Ll1 slides adverse possession

1. ADVERSE POSSESSION
Areej Torla
areej@iium.edu.my

2. MEANING OF ADVERSE POSSESSION
• The law of adverse possession upholds the estates
in land of persons who have no formal ownership.
• Adverse possession is „possession as of wrong‟
but long possession matures the wrong into a
right.
• As a result, if you occupy somebody‟s land
without his permission, you are a “squatter” and
you remain so, no matter how long your illegal
occupation might have been.

3. - NOT RECOGNISED BY THE NLC
• The NLC does NOT recognise adverse
possession.
• Against the State or against a private landowner.

4. EFFECT OF SQUATTING
• Squatting on State land is a crime
• Section 48:
• “No title to State land shall be acquired by possession, unlawful
occupation or occupation under any license for any period
whatsoever”.
• Therefore, unlawful occupation of State land even after a longtime
would not enable the occupier to obtain title to the land.
• Section 425:
• Unlawful occupation of State land is an offence

5. • Squatting on private land:
• Gives rise to the tort of trespass
• Section 341
• “Adverse possession for any length of time…shall not
constitute a bar to the bringing of any action for the
recovery thereof by the proprietor …”
• Therefore landowner may bring an action against the
squatter at any time.

6. SIDEK & ORS V THE GOVERNMENT OF
PERAK [1982] 1 MLJ 313
• Facts:
• The appellants came to Perak and opened up a jungle area
in Kg Gajah. Other settlers also settled in the area.
• The Government resettled some settlers to the land that
the appellants were occupying.
• The appellants were given notice to vacate the land.
• The appellants claimed that they were entitled in law and
equity to be in possession of the land that they pioneered
and occupied.

7. • Appellants‟ grounds of support:
• The DO had promised them 3 acres of padi land subject to
successful interviews.
• Utusan Malaysia published an article stating that the State
Director of Lands and Mines promised each pioneer settler
5 acres of padi land.
• Government of Perak:
• The appellants had no cause of action in law or equity as
they were squatters.

8. COURT HELD…
• Federal Court:
1. The appellants had no cause of action in law or equity as
they were squatters
2. Section 48 is against them
3. The only way to obtain State land is by way of NLC.

9. GOV OF NEGERI SEMBILAN V YAP
CHONG LAN [1984] 2 MLJ 123
Yap Chong Lan
& Ors
Lesco Development
Corporation Sdn Bhd
The Collector

10. COURT HELD…
•
The collector had no power to bind the state authority in making the
commitment which had been made.
•
It was the state authority which had power to alienate land. Therefore he took
the view that the collector had no authority to give the assurance that was
given.
•
Section 48 prescribed that no title to state land shall be acquired by
possession, unlawful occupation or occupation under any licence for any
period whatsoever,
•
Section 78(3) provided that the alienation of state land shall take effect on
the registration of a register document of title.
And as Lesco Development Sdn Bhd had been alienated the land, they were
rightfully entitled to the ownership and the consequential rights.

11. •
Who is the State Authority?
•
See also Lebbey v Chong

12. BOHARI BIN TAIB V PTG SELANGOR
[1991]
• The forefathers of the appellants and other unnamed occupiers
were pioneer settlers of the agricultural land in dispute. The
appellants alleged that between 1971 and 1976 they and the
others made application to the state authority for titles of the
said land.
• the Selangor State Executive Council had approved
the alienation of the said land to the appellants
• Following the policy of the state government that only genuine
and landless farmers would be given the land, only temporary
occupation licences („TOL‟) were granted to the farmers, on the
understanding that separate titles to the land would be issued
provided they continued to cultivate the land and remained with
landless status.

13. •
The appellants contended that after the expiry of the TOL period in 1984,
since they and the other farmers had satisfied the conditions imposed by the
respondent they have acquired legal right or expectation to be issued with
land titles.
•
The respondent however thought fit to hand over the lands to the Federal Land
Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA). The respondent on behalf
of the state government applied summarily under O 89 of the Rules of the High
Court 1980 for possession of the land without even offering any compensation
relating to the eviction of the appellants and others from the land.

14. COURT:
• For the purpose of the summary procedure under Order 89 of
the Rules of the High Court, a distinction should be made
between squatters simpliciter who have no rights whatsoever
and occupiers with license of consent.
• (Order 89 RHC:
• Where a person claims possession of land which he
alleges is occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a
tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the
tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation
without his licence or consent or that of any predecessor in title
of his, the proceedings may be brought by originating
summons…)

15. •
See also Shaheen bte Abu Bakar v Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor[1998]
4 MLJ 233

16. EXAMPLE OF A QUESTION ON THIS
TOPIC
•
Ali inherits a piece of land from his late mother 5 years ago. At that time, Ali
was pursuing his accountancy degree at the International Islamic University.
Last month, Ali approached his elder sister, Mala and asked for the land title
of the lot of land which was allocated for him. Unfortunately, Mala told him
that there was no land title for the lot but Ali has nothing to worry about
since everybody in their family knows that the land is his.
•
In fact, the headman of the village, Pak Ngah also acknowledges their
„ownership‟ over the land since they have been working and occupying the
land for the last 18 years.
•
Last week, Ali went to the nearest land office and asked for a copy of the
land title for the said lot. He was informed by the land office staff that the
state of Selangor has frozen all land alienation application till after the
general election. Ali was confused and angry since his case is not about new
application but more about confirming and acknowledging his right over a
piece of land in which he and his family have put all the efforts to revive the
virgin land.

17. 1. Advise Ali as regards to his rights and interests over the
land, if any. (5 marks)
2. Advise on Ali‟s status on the land if he continues
occupying and working on the land without having any
title on the land. (5 marks)
3. Would your answer be different if Ali‟s father had
received a letter from the District Officer stating that
their application for land alienation has been granted? (5
marks)