FORFEITURE
Article 76 of Fed con empowers Federal Parliament for the purpose of
Grounds of forfeiture
● S100 : non payment of sum demanded (s76,93)
● S127 : breach of condition
 Malayan Banking v Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Langat
- -
A. Non payment of Land Revenue
S94 (1)(2)(3) Time of Payment of rent - beginning of calendar year, but if alienated
after end of September then beginning of calendar year next following
S94(2) Time when rent in arrears - first day of June
S93 rent payable = debt due to SA recoverable by action as in s16, separate
from forfeiture procedure
Actions to be taken by SA:
s97(1) if in arrear, Land Admin may serve Form 6A
s97(2) note of service of such notice shall be endorsed on RDT
S98 serve to people with 1) registered interest eg. chargee, lessee, easement
holder AND 2) lien holder AND 3) tenant (exempt from registered with endorsement
by s117) AND 4) caveator
 Pow Hing v Registrar of Titles
 Khoo Cheng v Pentadbir Tanah Muar
S98 Who may pay
Can someone other than persons in s98(1) pay quit rent
 Permodalan YBK v Pentadbir Hulu Selangor
- Liberal and wider interpretation on s98
- Main concern of LA to collect payment
- Not capacity of entity who paid
- Consistent with s99 and 100 – no forfeiture if full payment made
- to interpret otherwise ‘it would mean In the future a husband cannot
pay quit rent on behalf of his wife. A son cannot pay quit rent on behalf
of his mother and so on so forth. Are the law meant to be harsh and led
to unreasonable result?’
S99 Effect of payment
Effect of non payment
S93 will be a debt
S100 declare forfeit if by end of term did not receive whole of sum, cannot
accept lesser sum during period specified in the notice in s97
No Extension of Period in Form 6A
 Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota Tinggi v UMBC
Constitutionality of s100
 East Union v Govt State of Johor
ensuring uniformity of law and policy to pass legislation with respect to inter
alia, collection of land revenue
- Applicant own rubber estate and failed to pay quit rent to Johor State
Government within time
Collector issued 5 Form 6A. Applicant then received letter from
Collector informing him the date specified had expired
- He then attempted twice to pay after expiration but Collector refused to
accept
- Then notice of forfeiture published in Johor Gazette and memorial
registered on RDT
- Applicant company applied for declaration that s100 NLC enacted by
Federal Parliament is void on the ground that it is ultra vires Art 76(4) of
Fed Con that section deals with a subject with respect to which it has
no power to legislate
Held:
- land is under state list. There is a general rule that
Parliament may not legislate with state subjects subject to
exceptions in 76(1). But for land tenure, relations of
landlord and tenant etc, parliament may only for purpose of
ensuring uniformity of law and policy makes law with
respect to that. Land tenure is the relationship of landlord
and tenant, It is common practice for landlord to agree
rent…
- Applicant argued that there was already uniformity before
NLC. Court held 76(4) authorizes Parliament to legislate
on land for the purpose only of ensuring uniformity of law
and policy, This does not mean that Parliament may not do
so even if there was already uniformity. If Parliament
wishes to replace a uniform law by another uniform law
that it considers suited. Or even respect and consolidate
the already uniform laws.
Order under s100
 Pow Hing Form 8A ≠order under s100
o There should be a separate order made previously under s100
distinct from Form 8A
o No form provided for an order under s100 but Collector can make
a simple order in terms of s100 on default by end of specified
period or make a minute to this effect in the file
o Provisions of Form 8A is only notice of reversion to the State that
forfeiture has taken effect on the day of publication.
o This supported by s134(1) challenging validity of forfeiture
against the order under s100
o
 Khoo Cheng Form 8A ≠order under s100
B. Forfeiture for Breach of condition
S103 (1) Types of condition
- Condition requiring continuous performance
 - Conditions subject to a fixed term – with expiry of particular
period specified
When breach of condition arise
S125(1) breach of condition requiring continuous performance – when condition not
complied with
S125(2) breach of condition subject to fixed term
(a) doing of act upon expiry of that time (specified therein or extended under 107)
without act being done
(b) refrained – doing of that act before that time
S126 breach of complex condition if consists two or more separate obligations –
failure to fulfil any
Whether breach arise
 Collector of Land Revenue Johor Bahru v South Malaysia
Industries Bhd [1978]
o R’s land subject to ‘for the erection of a factory’ and
restriction of user to ‘light industry’
o R rented a portion of the factory to urea company for use
as a store
Issue: was there a breach of condition?
FC:
- depends on the construction of the document of title in light
of NLC provisions
- The express conditions imposed are imperative obligation
on R to use the factory premises for a light industry for the
manufacture of the permitted limited articles. Ie. Kilang
zing. Wire-netting. Screw and nuts
- Sotring of industrial chemicals and fertilisers is not a
legitimate purpose of “user: permitted, and thus such use
is clearly in breach of the express condition restricting
user. It is a continuing breach [s103].
 Lam Eng Rubber
Effect of breach
S127(1)(a) and (b)
(a) alienated land become liable to forfeiture to the State Authority
(b) LA shall proceed with the enforcement of forfeiture in s129
- except where fine imposed under 1A
- or where action required to be taken under s128
Exceptions
Exception 1:
s127(1A) Imposition of Fine
(a) LA may instead of taking action under 128 or 129 serve Form 7E to require him
to show cause why a fine should not be imposed for the breach
(b) failure to show, LA may order RM500 or more, if continue breach, 1 day RM100
and more
S127(1B) where fine paid upon order made under (1A)(b). no action shall be taken
under s128 or 129 in respect of the breach
S127(1C) notwithstanding (1B), if LA after due enquiry is satisfied that breach
continues, he may serve notice in Form 7F on RP informing him of his intention to
take action under 128 or 129 upon expiry of 6 months from date of service of the
notice
Exception 2:
S128 Securing remedy of breach of condition
S128(1) LA shall serve Form 7A specifying the action required to remedy and
specified time , where alienated land liable under 127 to forfeiture to SA, and LA
thinks breach is capable of being remedied within a reasonable time
S127(4) every breach of condition shall be taken to be capable of being remedied
and [ the action shall be taken to consist (a) if positive condition : doing every act of
the omission which constituted the breach (b) negative condition: doing of acts as
are necessary to put the land into the state in which it would be if breach has not
occured]
S128(2) upon service of notice in 128(1) [ask to remedy], :A shall endorse on RDT
a note that land is subject to action for breach of condition
S128(3) service of notice in 128(1) [ask to remedy] – waiver to right of forfeiture
conditional upon strict compliance of the requirements and
(a) if comply with the notice – cancelled note endorsed under 128(2)
(b) if not complied LA take action in s129
 Ambank v Pentadbir Tanah Gombak [2014]
o Delpuri Corp was the RP of 3 plots of land A,B,C subject to land
use “bangunan” and express conditions “rumah pangsa untuk
kediaman”
o Alienation of land was subject to condition that Delpuri will build
apartments to be sold to squatters within 2 years
o Delpuri Corp charged land to Ambank and defaulted repayment.
AMbank exercised its rights and appoint receiver and manager
(R&M) in 2011
o 18/6/2012 LA(R) served Form 7A notices on Delpuri under s128
in respect of land A and B
o Form 7A notices: breach of condition under s116 since Delpuri
failed to build apartment buildings within 2 years and required
Delpuri to remedy by completing constructiions within 14 days
o 26/6/2012(8 days later) R&M applied to R for extension of time
but no response
o 29/6/2012 Form 7 notices endorsed on RDT
o 19/7/2012 LA issue Form 7B notices to Delpuri to show cause
why plots should not be forfeited
o 25/7/2012 Land enquiry scheduled to be held but adjourned by
LA pending outcome of proceddings
Issue 1: when did the 3 months period for appeal under s418
commence? Is the Form 7A notice a decision within s418?
Held: ‘decision’ = any act, omission, refusal, direction or order. Form 7A
notices issued pursuant to s128 specifying action required to be taken
for remedying the breach in question is the direction within the
definition under s418
Issue 2: is the time period specified in Form 7A notice reasonable
within meaning of s128(1)(b)?
Held: question is to be determined on a case to case basis. In this
case, the question is whether R has improperly exercised its power in
requiring Delpuri to complete construction within 14 days. It is
impossible for Delpuri to do so. The imposition of the 14 day deadline
was an arbitrary act and was clearly not based on any properly
consideration or appreciation of the surrounding circumstances and
facts. It was an irrational decision.
Thus the appeal against R’s decision must be allowed. As the
Form 7A notices were set aside, Form 7B notices relating to plots
A and B were also set aside and cancelled
 Hamidah v Pentadbir Tanah Gombak [2016]
S127(2) and (3) Land cease to be liable to forfeiture
S127(3) (a) breach remedied (b) for condition subject to fixed term, no action taken
under 128 or 129 before expiry of 12 years beginning with the date breach arose
S127(2) SA acceptance of land revenue due not a waiver of right of forfeiture
S129 Action to enforce forfeiture
S129(1) conditions
if liable under s127 then LA will take action under this section and
(a) of opinion that action under s128 not appropriate or
(b) proprietor of land failed to comply with any notice served on him under that
section
S129(2) service of notice in Form 7B
If take action under s129, LA serve Form 7B to proprietor and a copy to persons in
s98 (persons of interest who can pay rent)
S129(3) when LA serve the notice in Form 7B a note of service to be endorsed o 25/5/2002 – Form 6A received by Lim at other address on
on RDT same road
- that the land is subject to action for breach of condition, except in s128 o 12/3/2003 – LA issued Form 8A, affixed Form 8A at 5
already done so different places but Form 8A had no partliculars of land
S129(4) enquiry o 27/3/2003 – Form 8A was published in Gazette but
On the date specified in the notice, LA shall hold enquiry referred land as TLO2326 (wrong number)
(a) breach remedied : declare and cancel the note endorse under s129 or 128 o 18/6/2003 – LA made memorial of Form 6A and 8A,
(b) if he thinks time should be allowed to remedy: LA shall make order specifying endorsed date of service of Form 6A as on 18/6 instead of
action and time 25/5 (wrong date, he put the date on that day, he make
(c) if x fall within the above, LA shall take temporary possession of land if directed memorial)
by SA Held:
Or o Form 6A served on stranger
Make order declaring land forfeit to the SA  S97(1) requires Form 6A to be
served on RP
When does forfeiture take effect o Note of service made on 18/6/2003 more
S130 General than 1 year after service
S130(1)  Note of service made on
- As soon as may be after making of an order under s100 or 129, LA 18/6/2003 while s97(2) requires it
shall publish in Gazette a notification of forfeiture in Form 8A; to be done after service. Note of
- Upon such publication, forfeiture will take effect as mentioned in s131 service of Form 6A also state date
S130(2) once publish, publish copies in s433 + LA shall register memorial upon the of service as 18/6/2003 instead of
RDT 25/5/2002
o Land admin issued Form 8A at 5 diff places
(forfeiture publication: gazette + s433 + memorial) but not the land itself and had no
particulars of land
“as soon as may be after the making of order under s100 or 129” in s130(1) o Publication of Form 8A wrong lot
- Must make order under s100 or 129 first  no s100 order
 Pow Hing v Registrarof Titles, Malacca [1981] Form 8A not order of  with the wrong lot number. The
forfeiture made under s100. 7 months was also not as soon as may be publication of Form 8A in Gazette
after “making of order” could not have communicated the
 Johor Coastal v Pentadbir followed Pow Hing. It is not open to LA to fact of forfeiture of the land to the
make such declaration under s100 at any time. Failure to do so = fatal Plantiffs
procedural non-compliance  Publication of copies of Form 8A
also not in accordance to s433
Annulment of Forfeiture [apply to SA] thus s130(2) requirement not
S133 Power of SA to annul forfeiture fulfilled
s133(1) proprietor may anytime before forfeiture apply to SA for its annulment  Suffice to say forfeiture not
s133(2) SA may in his discretion refuse or allow petition, communicated to Ps, either by
if allow, may: Form 8A, Gazette or publication
(a) if for non payment. Require payment by petitioner penalty not exceeding 6 times of its copies and thus time to
the sum under s97, as SA think fit appeal could not have lapsed
(b) if for breach, require payment by petitioner an amount SA determine in respect (s418 time runs when it is
of expenses occasioned by forfeiture communicated to the person)
 UMBC v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota Tinggi [1984] o LA made memorial of Form 6A and Form
8A , endorsed date of service of Form 6A
Effect of Forfeiture on wrong date
s131  There was only memorial of
(a) revert to SA, freed and discharge from all titles and interest arising before publication of Form 8A in the
forfeiture (that is why s98 they deserve to be served a copy of notice, as their gazette but no memorial of its
interest may be extinguished) copies in accordance with s433
(b) buildings on RDT
Held: ‘the failure was almost total’ – nothing
- vested in SA done correctly
- to extent specified in s47  ‘Service was fundamental, and non
service of Form 6A was ground enough
- without payment of compensation
to set aside the forfeiture’,
(c) item of land revenue due to SA will be extinguished
 ALL MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
 Beh Lee Liang v Chew Sah Suak
TO make s100 order, to publish copies
of Form 8A as in s433, to register
Restrictions/ limitation on SA on realienation of forfeited land
memorial of publication of copies of
S132 shall not realienate or dispose before
Form 8A, was surely more than solid
S132(1) grace period of 3 months [the 3 months where the person can appeal
ground to set aside the forfeiture
under 418]
 This was not a case of irregularity in the
S132(2) if there was appeal during the 3 months, before appeal heard/decided
form or service of notice, but a case of
forfeiture made contrary to NLC
Challenging Validity of Forfeiture [apply to court]
provisions and of failure to comply with
S134 Appeals against forfeiture
legal requirements
S134(1) way, time period and subject matter
 Entire procedure was flawed
Validity can be challenged only through s418 (way) against the order in s100 or
129 (subject matter) 3months (time period)
 S418 – 3 months from the date it was communicated to him (any
 Pow Hing v Malacca [1981]
person aggrieved)
o RP in Malacca Transport Workers Ltd, land was charged
 Khoo Cheng v Muar [2008] to United Asian Bank
S134(2) grounds of setting aside o On 19/9/1978 – Form 6A served on RP by Collector, no
1. order made contrary to provisions note of service of Form 6A on RP, no note of service of
2. failure on part of LA to comply with the requirements of such provisions copies of Form 6A on United Asian Bank
o 21/6/1979 – collector declare forfeit, referring to Form 8A.
Plus one No separate order of forfeiture
3. not only mere irregularity unless SA thinks it is of significant nature o 31/1/1980 – publication of Form 8A in Gazette
Held:
What kind of irregularity is significant nature? o Form 6A served on RP by Collector, no note of service
Cases: on RDT, no note of service on UAB
 Khoo Cheng v Muar [2008]  No note of service endorsed on RDT
o RP of land TLO2082 Is deceased, Gan
  S97(2) requires note of service to be endorse
on RDT, which is to give notice to people with
existing or prospective interest in land that a
forfeiture may be imminent if RP does not
comply with Form 6A
 The endorsement in 97(2) has the purpose
and effect of a caveat to the world at large.
Notice of the action taken under s97(1) to
persons outside the scope of s98 eg.
Intending purchasers and others with
prospective interest in the land, must be by the
endorsement of service of Form 6A on RDT
 It is clear that compliance with s97(2) is
mandatory and non compliance will vitiate any
subsequent forfeiture.
 No intending purchaser will commit himself to
buy land if faced with notice by the
endorsement on RDT without taking steps to
protect his interest
 Absence of such endorsement is fatal
o No copy of Form 6A / note of service of copy of Form
6A on UAB
 S98 requires persons in s98 to be served with
copy of Form 6A. Undoubtedly, s98 is to
protect and prevent jeopardy to the listed
persons
 Also requires note of service of the copy of
Form 6A on listed person
o Declaration of Forfeiture referring to Form 8A
 There should be a separate order made
previously under s100 distinct from Form 8A
 No form provided for an order under s100 but
Collector can make a simple order in terms of
s100 on default by end of specified period or
make a minute to this effect in the file
 Provisions of Form 8A is only notice of
reversion to the State that forfeiture has taken
effect on the day of publication.
 This supported by s134(1) challenging validity
of forfeiture against the order under s100
o Publication of Form 8A about 7 months later
 7months after ‘declaration’ of forfeiture, is
hardly ‘as soon as may be after making of an
order under s100’ in 130(1)
 There is also no indication of compliance with
130(2) about publication of copies of Form 8A
in accordance with s433 and memorial of it on
RDT
o S97(2), 100 and 130(1) are clearly mandatory and non-
compliance will vitiate any purported forfeiture

 UMBC v Kota Tinggi [1984]



Wrongdoing by Officer Appointed by SA

S134(4)