Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us