LAND LAW 1 slides rights and powers of the state authority 2014
There is and shall be vested solely in the
State Authority the entire property in –
All State land within the territories of the State;
All minerals and rock material within or upon any
land in the State …
means the Ruler or Governor of the state
This case made a distinction between the
definition of the State Authority in the NLC and
the practical definition of State Authority.
“State authority under the Code is defined, the
purposes of the State of Selangor, as the Ruler.
For practical purposes, this means the Ruler
acting upon the recommendation of the Exco
of the state.”
"State land" means all land in the State (including
so much of the bed of any river, and of the
foreshore and bed of the sea…) other than (a)
alienated land; (b) reserved land; (c) mining land;
(d) any land … relating to forests”
(a) land above the shore-line; and
(b) foreshore and sea-bed.
Land above the shore-line shall be classified
as town land, village land and country land.
"shore line" means the high-water mark of ordinary
"foreshore" means all that land lying between the
shore line and the low-water mark of ordinary spring
Where the shoreline encroaches on alienated
land, the area affected by the encroachment
becomes State land.
However, the boundaries of the alienated land
are not affected by the retreat of the shoreline.
Re Sithambaran Chettiar
The retreated area belongs to the proprietor as
stated in the title.
All State land and all minerals and rock
material on land vest solely in the State
State Authority has powers of disposal over
All minerals and rock material,
Powers of disposal
By way of alienation
Otherwise than by alienation
Natural persons other than minors
Corporations having power to hold land
Sovereigns, governments, organisations…
Bodies empowered to hold land under the law
Non-citizens and foreign companies may
acquire land only with approval of State
(1) Alienated land will revert to the State
under several circumstances.
(a) upon the expiry of the term
(b) upon the publication in the Gazette of forfeiture
for non-payment of rent or breach of condition;
(c) death of a proprietor without successors, and the
abandonment of title by proprietors; and
(d) upon the surrender of land by the proprietor
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.
The NLC does NOT recognise adverse
Against the State or against a private
Squatting on State land is a crime
“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
Unlawful occupation of State land is an offence
Squatting on private land:
Gives rise to the tort of trespass
“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.
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
Appellants’ grounds of support:
The DO had promised them 3 acres of padi land subject to
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.
The appellants had no cause of action in law or equity as
they were squatters
Section 48 is against them
The only way to obtain State land is by way of NLC.
Yap Chong Lan
Corporation Sdn Bhd
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
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.
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
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.
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…)
Shaheen bte Abu Bakar v Perbadanan
Kemajuan Negeri Selangor  4 MLJ 233
Lebbey Sdn Bhd v Chong  5 MLJ 368
Kabra Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ahmad bin Sahlan
 2 CLJ 817
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
Advise Ali as regards to his rights and interests over the
land, if any. (5 marks)
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)
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