Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

PROPERTY LAW— LAND ACQUISITIONS — COMMON PROPERTY — COMPENSATION

In brief

Compulsory acquisition of land is the process by which the government obtains land from private landowners for any public use or for a purpose that benefits Malaysia’s economic development. It is a severe form of government involvement because it results in the eviction and dispossessed of landowners. Landowners’ constitutional rights are affected by compulsory acquisition. Thus, it is critical for landowners to understand their rights in order for their land rights to be protected and adequately compensated.

Q. The district land authorities were forced to take the common property of your condominium. Purchasers, on the other hand, failed to compensate you when they made the transaction. When asked for compensation, buyers rejected because they had already established possession of the land without compensating the owners. What can the landowners do?

A. First and foremost, as a property owner, you have the right to petition the court for substantial money to be paid for the property, as well as a proper reimbursement for the purchase of the property.

 

What is a common property? 

  • Any other land in the property that does not belong to an individual strata unit owner is referred to as common property. Common property, on the other hand, is shared by all property owners. The gymnasium, swimming pool, and elevators are only a few examples.

What are the circumstances that allow the government to take your land?

  •  Only under limited conditions can the government legitimately seize your property. The Land Acquisition Act of 1960 (LAA) authorize the government to seize a person’s property for public use if it benefits everyone. According to Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act the state authority may acquire any land that is required for any public purpose that is beneficial to Malaysia’s economic development, including mining, or for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, or recreational purposes, or any combination of these.

Example: In other words, if your land is needed for development in your township, it can be taken. If the future MRT project is expected to run through your neighborhood, the train firm or perhaps the state government may send you a notice or make a visit to your front door.

Can you stop the government from taking your land? 

  •  In order to prevent the authorities from taking your land, there are two elements you must first satisfy which are that the land isn’t being used for public purpose and it is not done in good faith.

If the government takes your land, do they have to pay you for it? 

  •  So, if all else fails and you can’t show anything against the government’s reason for seizing your property, you’ll have no option but to surrender control. But at the very least, you’ll get compensated. Furthermore, under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, the government is required to provide you with adequate or sufficient compensation in exchange for the land that they require. However, a Land Administrator will assess the price of your land, and if you are dissatisfied with the compensation amount, you must fill out Form N within 6 weeks, and the court will address the concerns.

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us