You are on page 1of 3

The first issue is whether Salman has breached the expressed condition for the

agriculture land?
The second issue is whether Salman has breach the express condition as by
leasing part of the building to Mak Mah?
The third issue is whether Salman has breached the express condition by
transferring his land under sale and purchase to Kadir?
The fourth issue is whether Musa, which has entered into a tenancy agreement
with Salman has a right to sue against Salman in the course of breach of
agreement and whether he is entitle for any remedy?
According to National Land Code 1965 (NLC 1965), the State Authority
has the power of disposal which depicted under section 42 of NLC 1965. Section
51of NLC stated that land shall be divided into three classifications which are
town land, village land and country land. One of the methods of the disposal is
by alienation of the land which respects to certain conditions. This alienation
means that to dispose the land by granting ownership rights on the land to
persons and/or bodies, thus making the land alienated land.
The state Authority however may alienate land subject to express
conditions which determined at the time of the land is approved to become
alienated land. This matter has been highlighted in section 79 of NLC which
states that when State Authority approves application for alienation, SA may
impose the category of land use and the conditions and restrictions in interest.
There are basically two types of conditions which are express condition and
implied condition respected to the land of agriculture.
The implied conditions under the Agriculture category can be seen in
section 115 of NLC where section 115(1)(a) highlights that no building shall be
erected on the land other than a building or buildings to be used as according
to the needs of the Agriculture itself as stipulated in section 115(4) of NLC.
Express conditions for the Agriculture are conditions that endorsed together on
the document of the title to the land and relate to the use of the land.
According to section 121(1) of NLC, it states the needs and requirements to
managing the agriculture land after successfully alienated to the registered
proprietor.
If the registered proprietor breaches these express condition and implied
condition, the said land can be brought for the forfeiture proceeding by the
State Authority respects of the virtue of section 129 of NLC.
Applying to the case, Salman owned a piece of land in Section 35, Shah
Alam. It was categorised as agricultural land and has a restriction under the
express conditions that the land cannot be transferred, leased and charged
without a written consent from the State Authority. Salman constructed a three-
storey building on the said land. Then, he ran a restaurant on the ground floor
and occupied the upper floor with his family.
By looking at the first issue, It can be seen that Salman has breached the
express conditions of the agriculture land by constructed a three storey building
on the said land for the purpose of running a restaurant without the consent of
the State Authority.
The second issue highlighted that Salman has breached the express
condition of the agriculture land by allowing Mak Mah to occupy part of the
building for the purpose of Nasi Lemak business under the Lease Agreement
without the consent of the State Authority.
Therefore at the same time, The Registrar of Titles had made an
endorsement on the Register Document Title to the land a note to the effect
that the land was subject to an action for breach of condition pursuant to
section 129 of the National Land Code 1965. This may result in the forfeiture of
the land hold by Salman as if he failed to present his show cause why the land
should not be forfeited.
This can be seen in the case of Collector of Land Revenue (JB) v South
Malaysia Industries Bhd. In this case, the land was held under a 60 years lease
(qualified title) and was alienated to the respondent company. There were two
express conditions on the title. First, this land is to be used solely for erection of a
factory and second, this land is only for light industry. The respondent
company has rented out the land to the urea company that used as a store for
industrial chemicals and fertilizers. The collector deemed that the said act is a
breach of condition and issued notice 7A under section 128 requiring the
respondent to remedy the breach within one month. This was not compiled with.
The collector then issued form 7B under section 129 to show cause why the land
should not be forfeited. During the enquiry, the respondent admitted the breach
and asked sometimes to evict the urea company. The Land Administrator gave
respondent about three months. Later however, the respondent company
brought an action for a declaration against the Collector alleging that the
proceeding is illegal. The High Court granted the declaration and held that
there must be a special condition prohibiting the use of the land as a store. The
Collector appealed by holding that there is no need for an express condition to
prohibit the use of land as a store as the State Authority had exercised its power
as to imposing a condition that the land be used to build a factory and only for
light industry.
It further held that the express conditions imposed an imperative
obligation on the respondent to use the factory premises for light industry.
Hence, storing of industrial chemicals and fertilizers was not a legitimate purpose
of user permitted under the lease.