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

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us