Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA 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.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH