NOVEMBER 16 — In March this year, I shared the case of a piece of land known as Lot 6, Town Area XXVII, Melaka Tengah District, Melaka State (Lot 6) which has been occupied and administered as a Convent and a school by the Portuguese Mission since 1905.

Despite the historical fact of occupation and use of land, the learned High Court judge said that they were “not in themselves sufficient to establish a legal and beneficial ownership interest in the land.

In Selangor, we have the case of Valiant Plus Sdn Bhd v Persatuan Pengikut Dewa Ching Lim Shi [2018] involving two pieces of land known as Lot 83949 and Lot 83950 located at Pandamaran, Klang.

The Plaintiff was a developer and the proprietor of the two lots. The Defendant was an association known as Persatuan Pengikut Dewa Ching Lim Shi which managed a temple erected on Lot 83950.

The Plaintiff sought to obtain vacant possession of the two lots which were previously owned by Melati Ehsan Consolidated Sdn Bhd (MECSB) and was purchased by the Plaintiff sometime in September 2010.

The temple had been in existence for about 50 years and claimed to have about 5,000 devotees.

In June 2015, the Plaintiff’s application to develop the two lots to build 269 units of affordable homes under Rumah Selangorku Type B, C and D was approved by the Selangor State Executive Council (EXCO) on condition, among others, that the Plaintiff was to obtain the Development Order and the approval of the Building Plan within 60 days from the date of approval of the EXCO.

No development, however, could be carried out since the Defendant refused to vacate Lot 83950. 

The Plaintiff had, on two occasions through its solicitors, wrote to the Defendant offering another piece of land (with a larger land area) and compensation. The offer was turned down.

The Defendant admitted that it never applied for Lot 83950 where the temple was constructed to be alienated to the Defendant.

Before the learned judge, counsel for the Defendant submitted as follows:

• The Plaintiff by way of an oral agreement promised to allocate a one acre land where the temple was located.
• The Defendant was not a squatter simpliciter having been in existence for 50 years.
• The State Government had directed the Plaintiff to provide a new site for the temple during a meeting held sometime in March 2016.
• The land offered to the Defendant was not suitable for a temple as it was next to a sewage plant.

The following facts were not disputed:

• The Plaintiff was the legal proprietor of the two lots and had legal interest over the same.
• The temple had been in existence before the lots were purchased by the Plaintiff.
• The Plaintiff did offer a land equivalent to one acre for the relocation of the temple.

In his judgment, the learned judge said:

“The Plaintiff is the legal proprietor of the [two lots] and I have no reason to disbelieve that there was no expressed or implied consent for the temple to remain on the current site. The fact that the temple has been there for 50 years does not mean it is a legal structure and it has the right to remain.

“To my mind, the Defendant has committed trespass. In Tan Wee Choon v. Ong Peck Seng [1986] 1 MLJ 322 at 323, Wan Yahya J (as he then was) had this to say: Trespass to land unlike criminal trespass is completed once a person wrongfully, albeit peaceably, intrudes into the land in the possession of another, even where no damage is done. Trespass to land covers all unlawful entry and includes taking possession, pulling down or destroying anything permanently fixed to the land.

“Every unlawful entry by one person on land in the possession of another is a trespass for which an action lies, although no actual damage is done. A person trespasses upon land if he wrongfully sets foot on, or rides or drives over, it, or takes possession of it, or expels the person in possession, or pulls down or destroys anything permanently fixed to it, or wrongfully takes minerals from it, or places or fixes anything on it or in it, or, it seems, if he erects or suffers to continue on his own land anything which invades the airspace of another, or if he discharges water from another’s land, or sends filth or any injurious substance which has been collected by him on his own land on to another’s land.”

The learned judge then referred to the case of Bohari bin Taib & Ors v. Pengarah Tanah Galian Selangor [1991] where the Federal Court held that squatters simpliciter have no rights whatsoever. This was similarly held in Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors v. Government of the State of Perak & Ors [1982].

It is true that squatters simpliciter have no rights.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.