DISPOSAL BY ALIENATION
Held : The SA had not acted ultra vires and
PROCESS OF ALIENATION
- S.43 of NLC
The powers of disposal conferred on the SA
- S.42(1)(a) of NLC
Duration/Term of alienation :
- S.76 of NLC
(a) for a term not exceeding ninety-nine years
(aa) in perpetuity (forever)
- S.81(1) of NLC
The following sums shall become due to the
State Authority at the time when it approves
the alienation
(a) first year's rent
(b) premium (if any)
(c) survey fees
(d) other fees relating to preparation of
document
- S.81(2) of NLC
The land administrator shall send by notice in
Form 5A to the applicant or intended proprietor
within specified time as stated in Form 5A, if not
paid, alienation shall lapse.
- S.82 (1) of NLC
Requires the applicant to pay deposit, if does
not pay deposit, then the application of
alienation shall not be entertained.
- S.82(2) of NLC
The land administrator shall issue Form 5A
within a specified time, if not, the application
withdrawn.
Teh Bee v K. Maruthamuthu
A TOL holder, K.Maruthamuthu claimed that he
had been occupying the land for 2 decades
when the Ng. Sembilan State Authority decided
to alienate it to Teh Bee. Form 5A was issued to
the applicant (Teh Bee) made payment of land
revenue within 3 months. However, she paid
beyond the specified time limit (10 months
beyond the stipulated date) but the payment
was accepted and the registration of title in her
name was perfected. K.Maruthamuthu who
occupied the land in question, challeged the
alienation and claimed that the approval had
lapsed when the payment of land revenue was
made. Thus, the SA had acted ultra vires the
NLC.
1
stated that the alienation was proper and valid.
At the time payment was made, there was no
other applicant. Thus, by accepting the
payment, the SA had given the applicant a fresh
approval as she is in fact was registered as
proprietress. This upheld the principle in TS that
“Registration is the key to title”.
- The time limit to pay land revenue under
S.81(2) of NLC is merely directory not
mandatory.
- S.42, S.76 and S.78 is the full discretionary
power of the SA.
- Thus, the SA has the discretion to accept
payment even if it is made beyond the specified
time limit.
- S.79(2) of NLC (Register Document of Title)
The following matters shall be determined by
the State Authority at the time when it
approves the alienation of land under this Act to
any person or body-
(a) the area approved for alienation or (in the
case land requiring to be surveyed) the
area provisionally approved
(b) the period for which the land is to be
alienated
- S.77(1)of NLC
After land revenue has been made, the SA will
determine the form of title to be issued
 Qualified title
- S. 176(1)(a) of NLC - The purpose is to enable
land to be alienated in advance of survey
- S.176(2)(a) of NLC - The area of land is not final
and merely provisional.
- S.176(2)(b) of NLC - The land is incapable of
being subdivided, partitioned or amalgamated.
- However, a proprietor of a qualified title
confers the same rights under final title EXCEPT
it cannot be subdivided.
- S.177 of NLC
2 forms of qualified title :
- Registry Title - Form 7A
- Land Office Title - Form 7B
 Final title
SA will determine what form of final title to be
issued :
- S.77(3)(a) - Registry Title
- S.77 (3)(b) - Land Office Title
- After determining the form of final title,
Register Document of Title and Issue Document
of Title must be prepared.
- S.78 of NLC
(1) The alienation of State land under final title
shall be effected according to the provisions in
Chapter 3.
(2) The alienation of State land under qualified
title shall be effected according to the
provisions of Chapter 2 of Part Eleven.
(3) The alienation of State land shall take effect
upon the registration of a register document
of title as referred to sub-section (1) or (2) and
until the alienation of land has been approved
by the State Authority, the land shall remain a
State land.
Piagamas Maju v Pejabat Tanah Galian Negeri
Selangor
The Appellant made an application to Pegawai
Daerah Tanah Petaling (PDTP) for the issuance
of Form 5A but there was no response to this
letter.
The Appellant submitted the relevant survey
and pre-computation plans to PDTP to facilitate
the issuance of Form 5A. PDTP replied to the
Appellant’s letter dated 29 and reiterated that
the pre-computation plan had to be submitted
before Form 5A could be issued. The Appellant
sent a letter to Jabatan Perancangan that the
Pre-computation Plans have been submitted to
MBSA and that the Appellant was seeking the
approval of Jabatan Perancangan MBSA with
regards to the the PreComputation Plans.
Reminder was issued by the Appellant to MBSA
as there was no reply from MBSA. The Appellant
wrote to the Menteri Besar of Selangor to, inter
alia, request for the Menteri Besar to assist in
the completion of the alienation of the Land to
the Appellant. The Menteri Besar’s Office wrote
to the 2nd Respondent, enclosing the letter.
MBSA then wrote to the 2nd Respondent and
informed the 2nd Respondent, inter alia, that it
did not have the necessary information
regarding the land size that was alienated to the
Appellant and requested for the necessary
information. The Appellant wrote to the 2 nd
Respondent to resolve the confirmation of the
Pre-computation Plans so that Form 5A could be
issued. The Appellant wrote a letter similar to
the previous letter but there was also no reply
to this letter. Then, PDTP conveyed to the
Appellant that the alienation of the land to the
Appellant had been revoked.
Held : In this instance, the land has been
approved for alienation but the alienation of the
land has not been completed. This is due to the
fact that the registration pursuant to s. 78(3)
has not been effected; no document of title to
the land has been issued to the applicant.
2
Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the
land has been approved for alienation, the land
remains state land. The State Authority's power
to revoke the alienation has been recognised by
our courts. In the circumstances, the revocation
of the alienation of the land was an act which
fell within the exercise of the State Authority's
powers.
- The applicant's case is also based on the
doctrine of legitimate expectation (principles of
natural justice and fairness, and seeks to
prevent authorities from abusing power).
- However, this argument is unarguable as it has
been pronounced by the Court of Appeal and
affirmed by the Federal Court that the doctrine
of legitimate expectation cannot and should not
override the express statutory power vested in
the State Authority.
Follows the case :
North East Plantations Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir
Tanah Daerah Dungun & Satu Lagi
The appellant wanted to make a declaration
that the decision of the State Executive Council
of Terengganu rejecting the payment of
premium made by the appellant and revoking
the alienation of lands, which had previously
been approved by the State Executive Council is
invalid.
The appellant company applied to the State
Government of Terengganu for the alienation of
10,000 acres of reserved forest land. The State
Government approved the application In the
meantime, the appellant was asked by the
second respondent to put in a formal
application for the alienation of State land.
Three lots were then issued with titles and
alienated to the appellant. Subsequently, the
appellant was issued with 8 Form 5A notices
each and pursuant to section 81(2) of NLC
requiring the appellant to make payment of
premiums. These Form 5A notices were in
respect of another 8 lots whose alienation to
the appellant had been approved by the State
Authority. General Election was held in
Malaysia. The PAS State Government of
Terengganu was defeated by the Barisan
Nasional party in the General Election.
Meanwhile, in response to the statutory Form
5A notices, an officer of the appellant went to
the Land Office Dungun to pay the premiums as
required by the said Form 5A notices and
section 81 of the NLC. But the first respondent
refused to accept the payment but no reason
was given for the refusal. The Deputy State
Director of Lands and Mines, issued a directive
freezing all land transactions on land made which is on 9 November 1967. The first
administration of the State until further notice. applicant sold the land to the second and third
No reason was given for such a directive. The defendant. A memorandum of transfer and
directive also does not state as to under which charge were presented for registration but were
provision of law it was issued; or who directed rejected by Registrar of Titles, the respondent
him to issue such a directive. on the ground that that the restriction was still
subsisting.
Held : Under the National Land Code the new
State Executive Council/State Authority had no Held : The respondent relied on S.78(3) of NLC
power to reject the payment and to cancel the in which the restriction in interest commenced
approval to alienate which had been given from the date of registration of the register
earlier, once the payment as required by the document of title, that is 9 November 1967. The
Form 5A notices issued to the appellant Registrar of Titles was therefore correct in
(pursuant to sections 81 and 82 of the NLC) had rejecting the documents presented for
been duly made by the appellant. There is a registration.
legitimate expectation on the part of the
appellant that they be issued with the titles in
respect of the 8 lots. This is because, relying on
the earlier approval by the State Authority, they
had already made the statutory Form 5A
payment; and they had placed their hopes on
the words ‘upon payment of all fees the
Registrar shall prepare, register and issue a
qualified title in respect of the land.’ as found in
S.80(3) of the NLC and in S.180(1) of the NLC.
There is also a legitimate expectation on the
part of the appellant to be given reason for the
revocation of an earlier approval, particularly,
where the statutory payment had already been
made – where it was made twice and unlawfully
rejected twice.
However, in the Federal Court, the judgement is
towards the respondents.
“The power to refuse the payment submitted by
the appellant was impliedly stated under S.78(3)
NLC. That section clearly provided that so long
as the land was not registered in the appellant’s
name, it was still owned by the State
Government. This accordingly implicitly meant
that the State Government had the power to
revoke the previous approval and reject the
payment made by the appellant. There was no
express provision in the NLC which stated that
the State Government must accept the payment
made by way of Form 5A”.

Dr Ti Teow Seow & Ors v Pendaftar Geran Geran

Tanah Negeri Selangor (S.78(3) of NLC)

The first applicant’s land was endorsed with the

restriction in interest to the effect that it could
not be transferred or leased for a period of 15
years without the consent of the Ruler in
Council. The title’s particulars indicate the
commencement of date of title is on 18 August
1964 but alienation was registered after full
payment of premium and other fees have been

3
FORFEITURE OF ALIENATED LAND
Grounds :
- Non-payment of rent
- Breach of conditions
 Non-payment of rent
- S.93 of NLC : annual rent
- S.94 of NLC : in arrear - payment before end of
June
- S.97(1) of NLC - notice of demand by Land
Administrator (Notice FORM 6A)
- S.97(2) of NLC - endorsement made in the
Register Document of Title (note of service)
“shall be endorsed”
Pow Hing & Anor v Registrar of Titles, Malacca
Siang Hon Fong agreed to purchase a land from
the RP which executed a memorandum of
transfer of land. An existing charge in favour of
the United Asian Bank Berhad were transmitted
to the respondent for registration together with
the relevant issue document of title to the land
(instruments). The second appellant executed a
memorandum of transfer of his land share in
the land to the first appellant. As there was no
response from the respondent with regard to
the instruments presented for registration, the
appellants’ solicitors caused their agent in
Malacca to make a search of the title. These two
instruments were then rejected by the
respondents. The appellants then found out
that Form 6A (notice of demand for arrears of
land - S.97(1) of NLC) was issued and that the
other recorded entries including the
instruments had since been cancelled. However,
there was no compliance with the provisions of
S.97(2) of NLC requiring that a note of service of
any such notice shall be endorsed. The RP failed
to pay the arrears within the specified time limit
and the Collector has declared the land
forfeited to the SA pursuant to S.100 of NLC.
Held : Forfeiture can only be done in a notice of
forfeiture under S.130 (1) of NLC for publication
in the gazette which is required to be done as
soon as may be after the making of an order
under S.100 of NLC declaring that the land
forfeit to the SA.
S.130 (1) of NLC provides that the forfeiture
shall take effect only after such publication. The
making of such endorsement on the register
document of title (S.79(2) of NLC) is mandatory.
The rationale is to ensure the certainty of the
register document of title by enabling persons
1
dealing with the RP to rely safely on the register
regarding the land in question.
- S.98(1) & (2) of NLC - To pay sum demanded
Those having registered interest (chargee or
lessee) also entitled to be served a copy of Form
6A. They can pay on behalf of the proprietor
Sungai Tukang v Registrar of Kedah
P (RP of a piece of land situated in Kedah)
claimed that the said forfeiture is null and void
as there is no notice of demand in Form 6A
served on the P. No attempt was made to serve
in the manner prescribed in S.431 of NLC.
Therefore, the notification in the gazette is null
and void.
Held : The notice and contents must reach the
person before any further steps can be taken.
Thus, the failure to issued the service render the
proceedings of forfeiture is null.
- S.99 of NLC - Notice cease to have effect upon
payment of sum demanded (all amount must be
paid in full and not by instalment)
- S.100 of NLC - Non-payment (order of
forfeiture)
 Breach of condition
“required to perform an act”
OR “refrained from doing”
- S.79(2)(f) of NLC - Whether the land is to be
alienated free from any category of land use,
and, if not, the category to be imposed stated in
a notification
General rule : S.127(1)(a) of NLC
Any breach of condition is liable to forfeiture.
Collector of Land Revenue of JB v South
Malaysia Industries
R was granted a 60 year old lease over 3 acres
of State Land with special conditions, the main
one being that it was to be used solely for the
erection of factory. After the factory was built,
the company rented out a portion of the factory
to urea company for 3 years to store fertilizers.
The A alleged that since the special condition
specify that the land should be used solely for
erection of factory, it was a breach of condition.
He sought to take action to forfeit the land. The
R claimed the collector was bad in law. The
judge granted the application for the
declaration that SA act on bad faith and the A
appeal.
FC : SA had and did exercise its power to impose
restrictions as the user of the factory erected on
the said land.

FORFEITURE FOR BREACH OF CONDITION
 Alternatives to SA
S.127(1)(a) “and” S.127(1)(b) “except”
S.127(1)(b) of NLC
a) Fine imposed under subsection s.127 (1A) of
NLC
b) Send notice to remedy the breach under
S.128 of NLC
c) Hold an enquiry to forfeit the land under
S.129 of NLC
A) S.127(1A) of NLC
- Land Administrator serve notice in Form 7E
notice to pay fine and show cause why such fine
should not be imposed
- If fail to show cause, fine will be imposed and
if there is continuing breacch, further fine of not
below RM100 each day during which breach
continue.
S.127(1C) of NLC
If LA find that there is still continuing breach, he
may serve Form 7F to show intention to take
action under S.128 and S.129 of NLC.
B) S.128 of NLC
- GR - S.128(1)(a) of NLC - Breach liable to
forfeiture
- S.128(1)(b) of NLC - discretionary power of LA
to serve Form 7A to specify the proprietor to
remedy the breach within reasonable time
- S.128(3)(a) of NLC- If pay, Form 7A endorsed in
RDT under S.128(2) shall be cancelled
- S.128(3)(b) of NLC - If not comply, Form 7A
must be endorsed in RDT and LA shall take
action accordance with S.129 of NLC.
C) S.129 of NLC
- S.129(1)(a) of NLC - LA shall take action under
this section if taking action under S.128 is not
appropriate
OR
- S.129(1)(b) of NLC - notice given under S.128
which is Form 7A is not comply
- S.129(2)(a) of NLC - LA serve notice in Form 7B
on proprietor
- S.129(2)(b) of NLC - copy of that notice must
be served to those have registered interest on
that land.
- S.129(3) of NLC - such notice under S.129(2)
must be endorsed by LA on RDT, a note to that
the land is subject to breach of condition
- S.129(4) of NLC - date, time and place was
specify in Form 7B, LA shall call for enquiry on
2
the conclusion
a) If the breach has been remedied, the order of
forfeiture shall cancel
b) LA gives another chance for proprietor to
remedy the breach and make an order
specifying the action to be taken remedy the
breach within the time specified (read with
S.129(5)(a) of NLC - cancel, S.129(5)(b) of NLC -
not comply, declare the land forfeit to SA)
c) LA may take temporary possession of the land
as he may be directed by SA or in the absence of
such direction, declare the land forfeit to SA
- S.130 of NLC - Forfeiture upon publication in
the gazette (FORM 8A - “as soon as may be”)
(Pow Hing’s case)
- S.131 of NLC - Effects of forfeiture
a) Land revert to SA - S.46(1)(b) of NLC -
Reversion to SA (become State Land)
b) SA will not pay any compensation for any
buildings existed on the land
c) Any item of land revenue then due to SA will
be extinguished
- S.132 of NLC - SA shall not realienate the land
before the expiry period of 3 months OR
proprietor can apply for annulment to SA
immediately before forfeiture takes effect
- S.133 of NLC
GR - Proprietor may at any time before its
forfeiture apply to SA for annulment of
forfeiture
However,
S.133(2) of NLC - discretionary power of SA to
grant or to refuse such application, and if it
allows, SA may do so on conditions
(a) If the forfeiture was for non-payment of rent
- asked to pay an amount not exceeding 6 times
sum owing
(b) If the forfeiture was for breach of condition,
- asked to pay for the expenses occasioned by
the forfeiture
- S.134 of NLC - appeal against forfeiture under
S.418 of NLC
S.134(2) of NLC - Grounds of appeal against
forfeiture
 Order made contrary to provisions of NLC
 Failure of LA to comply with the
requirement of any such provisions.
Pow Hing & Anor v Registrar of Titles, Malacca
Appeals against forfeiture based on ground
outside of S.134(2) of NLC may not succeed.

Relief against Forfeiture

UMBC Bhd v Anor. v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota
Tinggi
The State of Johor alienated to the second
appellants in 1966 for a term of 99 years in
consideration of a stipulated annual rent and
other conditions. The second appellants had
spent a large sum of money in developing the
land for the purpose of a sugar plantation. They
had also secured extensive loans from the first
appellants and as security thereof they charged
the land to them. In 1977, the second
appellants failed to pay the annual rent.
Collector of Land Revenue issued a notice of
demand (Form 6A) with a copy being also
served on the first appellants as chargees. The
notice required payment of the outstanding
rent together with penalties within the period
of 3 months. Neither rent nor penalties were
paid within the stipulated time and the SA
continued with the forfeiture proceedings.

Whether equitable rules of English law which

have to do with relief against forfeiture have
applies in Malaysia?
Held : The English rules of equity relating to
relief against forfeiture should not be available
to proprietors of alienated land. The NLC is a
complete and comprehensive code of law
governing the tenure of land in Malaysia and
there no room for the importation of any rules
of English law in this field.