The document discusses the Land Administrator's Right of Way (LAROW) under Malaysian land law. It provides an introduction to LAROW, explaining that it grants a right of way or access to landlocked land. It outlines the purposes of LAROW, the powers of the Land Administrator to create LAROW, and the two types of LAROW - private and public. It discusses relevant cases, compensation for affected landowners, and the procedures for creating, maintaining, and extinguishing a LAROW. In summary, the document is an overview of the legal framework and principles governing the Land Administrator's power to impose a right of way over private land for access purposes in Malaysia.

1. RIGHTS OF STATE
AUTHORITY
- LAND
ADMINISTRATORS
RIGHT OF WAY
(LAROW)

2. NLC - LAROW
Dr. Sharifah & Dr. Ainul 2

3. INTRODUCTION
The right of the State
Authority to create a public
or private right of way
LAROW is an order made by
Land Administrator granting
right of way or an access
whereby the alienated land,
be it town, village or country
land is being landlocked and
not having access to a
‘public terminal.’

4. • The rights of way may be
created in favour of the public
or for an individual as a
private right of way.
• S. 387 NLC provides that
“public terminal” means the
foreshore or a river, railway
station or public road
whereby under S.5 NLC
foreshore means all that land
lying between the shoreline
and the low water mark of
ordinary spring tides.

5. PURPOSE OF LAROW
Che Nik v Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Krai
• only in the absence of an alternative route – thus there is an
urgent public necessity for LA to grant a public right of way
.private interest of the RP must give way to a larger public
interest – w/o the road the public can’t possibly move also
affect their livelihood
5

6. WHY LAROW?
• Land ‘A’ is ‘landlocked’. No access to public road.
6
Land A Land B
Land C
Land D
Public Road

7. MEANING OF ‘PUBLIC
TERMINAL’:
•See s.387
• 387. In this Part, “public terminal” means the foreshore, or a
river, railway station or public road.
7

8. NATURE OF LAROW:
• It is an imposed right of way as opposed to an easement which
is an acquired right.
• Rights and obligations conferred in a LAROW run with the land.
(s.388(2))
8

9. TWO TYPES OF LAROW:
• 1) Private Right of Way
• (s.389(1)(a), s.389(2), s.389(3))
• 2) Public Right of Way
• (s. 389(1)(b) and s. 389(4))
9

10. A. POWERS OF LAND
ADMINISTRATOR TO CREATE
LAROW – S.388 NLC
• The Land Administrator has powers to create Right of Way.
• Case: Lye Thean Saw v Syarikat Warsaw (1990) 2 CLJ 743
The respondents (plaintiffs) in this case were sand mining and sand
contractors. They had entered into agreements with various land
owners to mine, work and take away sand from their holdings. Entry to
their holdings was by way of an access road on a lot which for many
years had been reserved for a road and set aside as such and used by
the public. Although the lot of land had been surrendered to the
government it had not been taken over by the government.

11. The respondents claimed that the appellants (defendants) had wrongfully and
maliciously conspired and combined among themselves to injure their
business by obstructing the access road and preventing their lorries and other
vehicles transporting sand from going in and out of the holdings. The
appellants denied the claim. The appellants had applied for subdivision of the
lands in 1957. The third appellant retained the lot of land on which the road
was and said he had granted the right of entry to the lot only with his consent.
Before the judge of the High Court, two issues were agreed – (i) was the lot a
public highway prior to 1957? and (ii) was the lot a public highway after 1957?
The learned trial judge gave judgment for the respondents. The appellants
appealed.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) Apart from legislation, dedication is also a method by which a right of way
may be created.
(2) In this case the path has been used by the public, particularly those living in
the vicinity for many years, even before the third appellant acquired ownership
of the land, without interruption. He had taken no steps to ensure that a public
right of way was not so created. The path has been used and enjoyed by the
public as a right for so many years openly and without interruption and must
be known to the owner of the land.
(3) The respondents were merely using the common law method of
establishing a public right of way by proof of dedication. The learned judge
was within his right to accept it and there is no reason to interfere with his
decision

12. SUPREME COURT
OBSERVED:
• Public rights of way may arise in two ways. They are either
provided by statute, or they are created by dedication of the soil
to the public use by the owner and acceptance of the public.
12

13. CREATION OF LAROW:
• 1) a) Private Right of Way: Apply through
Form 28A (s. 390(1))
b) Apply to LA for creation of Public
Right of Way: Opinion of Land
Administrator that creation of the
LAROW is ‘expedient’.
(s.390(2)(b))
13

14. (CONT.):
• 2) LA will hold an enquiry or investigate further. (s.390(2))
• 3) LA makes order creating the LAROW, if he is satisfied that it
is expedient. (s.390(3)) – Content of Order, see s. 390(4).
14

15. (CONT. ) :
• 4) Survey conducted on the route of the LAROW. (s. 391(1)(a))
• 5) IDT of burdened land delivered to the LA. (s. 391(1)(b))
• 6) LA makes a memorial of the LAROW in the RDT and IDT.
(s.391(2))
15

16. COMPENSATION TO OWNER OF
BURDENED LAND?
•Yes, see s.393.
16

17. SECTION 393
• 393. (1) Subject to this section, compensation shall be payable
to any person for the use of his land as a Land Administrator’s
right of way and for any damage suffered in respect of trees,
crops or buildings to which he is entitled, as a result of the
creation of the said right of way.
• (2) The amount of compensation payable under this section
shall be determined by the Land Administrator.
• (3) Save as provided by this section, no person shall be entitled
to compensation for damage suffered as the result of the
creation of a Land Administrator’s right of way.
Dr. Sharifah & Dr. Ainul 17

18. EXTINCTION OF LAROW:
•See s. 395
• 2 Grounds:
– Failure to comply with conditions.
– LAROW no longer expedient.
18

19. (CONT. ) :
• Mode of extinguishing LAROW:
• 1) LA Holds Enquiry.
• 2) Order Extinguishing LAROW.
• 3) Cancel Memorial.
19

20. COST
• Section 392 NLC = the cost of surveying, constructing, maintaining
or repairing a Land Administrator's right of way shall be borne in
the case of a private right of way, by the authority or
• person for whose benefit it has been created; and in the case of a
public right of way, by the State of Authority.
• Ng Men Soon & Satu Lagi v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Muar & Satu
Lagi
• = Repairs to be borne by the DFs(applicant) to the PFs
• M Radha Krishnan v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Manjung
• Agrimal Project Sdn. Bhd. v Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pengarah Tanah &
Galian Johor
20

21. CHARACTERISTICS OF LAROW
– S.389 NLC
• LAROW maybe as provided by S.389(1) NLC
• a) private right of way for the benefit of either
the State Authority or the proprietor of any
alienated country land; or
• b) public right of way created for the benefit of
the public.

22. …CONTINUE
• S.389(2) NLC provides that a private right of
way created by the State Authority shall
authorise persons:
• a) to pass and re-pass between reserved land
or forest reserve and public terminal; or
• b) for the purpose or removing rock material
from any land, to pass and re-pass between
the land and a public terminal.

23. CASES
• Si Rusa Inn S.B. v CLR Port Dickson [1978] 1 MLJ 147
• Lye Thean Saw v Syarikat Warsaw (1990) 2 CLJ 743

24. SI RUSA INN S.B. V CLR PORT
DICKSON [1978] 1 MLJ 147
This was an appeal against an order of the Collector of Land Revenue, Port
Dickson, granting to the second respondent (the Grantee) a private right of
way over a piece of land, Lot No. 293,against the first appellant, its registered
owner, the second appellant, its registered lessee and the third appellant, its
registered chargee. The Grantee's own land, being a kind of second-layer land
from the seashore or foreshore, had no frontage to the seashore and was
sandwiched between the said Lot No. 293 on one side and another piece of
land belonging to the Royal Malaysia Police Force. The undisputed purpose
for the Grantee's application was one of pleasure. He wanted a shorter route
to the sea for swimming and allied activities. There was an alternative route at
all material times to the seashore via the public road available to the Grantee
but the distance to be covered would be between 1 and 2 km. instead of the
comparatively short route through the first appellant's land. The appellants
contended, inter alia, that the said collector had exercised wrongly the
discretion given to him under section 390(3)of the National Land Code in
granting the right of way. Section 390(3) provides that the collector shall make
an order creating the right of way if satisfied that it is expedient for a private
or public right of way to be created

25. …CONT
Held, allowing the appeal:
1) when a Collector is satisfied that it is expedient it is tantamount to this, that
he should then act or exercise his discretion properly and reasonably in all
cases, save in exceptional circumstances where such departure from such
propriety or reasonableness can be made;1) land or possession of land is
inviolate. Any interference or invasion of it is only tolerated on impeccable
grounds; 1I) there must be something more than just mere inconvenience or
convenience; some situation that partakes of gravity or urgent necessity to
grant a
• private right of way. In this case there were no exceptional circumstances
here which
• could have impelled the said Collector to make the order complained of, or
which
• made it, for the said Collector, expedient to make an order which would be
contrary to
• principle, the main one being the inviolateness of land;
• 1) the said Collector had therefore erred in making the order complained of.

26. PROCEDURE OF
CREATION OF RIGHT
– SS. 390-391
• Whether the LA must hold an enquiry –
• [2001] 5 MLJ 736, TAAT YIK PLANTATIONS SDN BHD V
PENTADBIR TANAH HILIR PERAK & ORS, ... alterem partem -
Whether order of land administrator void for failure to ...
... heard to the plaintiff - Creation of right of way on adjoining land
Land Law

27. • Land Administrator's right of way -
Creation - Land administrator's discretion
in granting such ..... Alternative route
available.
• Whether land administrator had exercised
his discretion properly in granting such
right.
• Whether land administrator ought to have
granted right of way - National Land Code s
390. The plaintiff who is the registered
owner of land GB 15994 Lot Baru 16412)
('the land') was dissatisfied with the
creation of a collector's private right of
way (the right of way') dated 30 January

28. • Tong Tiong Lim v PTD, Johor Bahru & Anor [1994] 3 MLJ
674
Thankam De Silva PTD Larut Matang, Taiping [1995] 1 CLJ
224

29. COSTS - S.392
• Cost of surveying, constructing, maintaining
or repairing a private right of way shall be
borne by the authority or person who will
benefit from the creation of LAROW as for the
public right of way the costs shall be borne
by the State Authority

30. COMPENSATION - S.393
• Payment of compensation shall be made to any
person for use of his land as the right of way.
Compensation is payable for damages to trees,
crops or buildings as determined by the Land
Administrator. The proprietor of the land upon
which LAROW is imposed is not entitled to any
payment for such imposition.

31. SHARING OF RIGHTS BY
ADJACENT
PROPRIETOR – S. 394
• A proprietor or occupier of any alienated land
which adjoins or abuts in the proximity of land for
the benefit of which a private rights of way has
been created may apply to the Land Administrator
in Form 28C to share the right of way.

32. EXTINCTION OF
LAROW – S. 395
• Upon breach of condition or the LAROW is no
longer expedient. The Land Administrator may
hold inquiry for the breach of condition or to
inquire as to whether the LAROW is expedient.

33. 33

34. LIEW PECK LIAN & ORS. V THE
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, JOHORE [1961]
MLJ 117
• Held:
“Before a right of way can be granted…the Collector must satisfy
himself that access is not otherwise reasonably available and
‘reasonably’ here certainly does not mean ‘conveniently’…”
34

35. SI RUSA INN S/B & ORS. V. CLR PORT
DICKSON & ORS. [1987] 1 MLJ 147
• The CLR had granted to the 2nd Resp. a private right of way over
land belonging to the 1st App. in order that the 2nd Resp. would
have a shorter route to the beach.
• The App. applied to the court against the order of the CLR on
the ground that the order was wrongly made as the grantee had
an existing access to the shore.
35

36. HELD:
• 1) When a Collector is satisfied that it is expedient…he
should then exercise his discretion properly and reasonably
unless exceptional circumstances exist.
36

37. ( CONT. ) :
• 2) ‘Reasonably’ does not mean ‘conveniently’. A private right of
way may not be created out of mere convenience as the
circumstances must be such as to show gravity or urgent
necessity.
37

38. THEREFORE:
COLLECTOR WAS WRONG TO
MAKE THE ORDER. 38

39. HOWEVER,
E V E N W H E R E T H E R E E X I S T S A N A L T E R N AT I V E
R O U T E , T H E L A M AY D E C I D E T H AT T H E R O U T E I S
I M P R A C T I C A L . 39

40. CHE NIK BT BAKAR V PT KUALA
KRAI [1997] 5 MLJ 516
• This was an appeal against the discretion of the LA to grant a
LAROW on the ground that there existed an alternative route,
e.g. a reserved road.
40

41. HELD:
• “The so-called reserved road…is not yet a road…it is still a
jungle, sloppy and hilly. It is therefore not reasonable to treat
the road reserve as an alternative route to the road.”
41

42. VADIVELU V M. RADHAKRISHNAN
[1996] 1 CLJ 224
• The court held that it was correct for the LA to create the
LAROW even though there 2 other access roads.
• The first road was only passable to light vehicles while the 2nd
road was a swampy area prone to floodings.
42

43. THANKAM DE SILVA V PTD DAERAH LARUT
DAN MATANG, TAIPING [1995] 4 CLJ 584
• Case concerning whether or not the LA is under an obligation
to hold an enquiry under section 390(2) before ordering
LAROW?
43

44. HELD:
• The LA has a discretion whether or not to hold an enquiry under
section 390(2). If he has sufficient facts before him, he may
decide on the matter without holding an enquiry.
44

45. SEE ARTICLE:
• Hunud Abia Kadouf,
‘Public Demands vs. Individual Interests: An Analysis of the Land
Administrator’s Right of Way’ [2003] 1 MLJ ci
45

46. PROBLEMATIC QUESTION
46

47. ANSWER
• ISSUE: Whether it is expedient for LA to allow creatio of LAROW?
• RULES:
1. Defined what is larow and its purpose
2. CREATION OF LAROW:
i. S. 390(2)(b)
ii. Investigate s.390(2)
iii. Makes order
iv. Survey
v. Idt delivered to LA
vi. LA makes a memorial
** DECIDED CASES: 1 SI RUSA INN – 2ELEMENTS TO SATISFY, CHE NIK. VADIVELU
• APPLICATION
How do u apply?
• CONCLUSION
What is your advise to LA
Dr. Sharifah & Dr. Ainul 47