TANG GUAN GIM v 1. ) Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah 2. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri

ma-24ncvc-403-09-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 9 July 2026 • MA-24NCvC-403-09/2025

Catchwords

Keywords Tang Guan Gim v. Pejabat Daerah Dan Tanah Melaka Tengah & Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Melaka [k.1] bth 10.7.2026 LAND LAW — Forfeiture — Forfeiture for non-payment of quit rent — Application to compel decision on request for re-alienation — Whether State Authority under statutory duty to consider and communicate decision on application for re-alienation under s 133(3) National Land Code — Whether discretionary power under s 133(3) gives rise to enforceable public duty — Whether mandamus or mandatory injunction available to compel exercise of discretion — National Land Code, ss 133(3), 418 & 432 — Specific Relief Act 1950, s 44. LAND LAW — Forfeiture — Re-alienation of forfeited land — Petition for annulment previously refused — Subsequent request for re-alienation — Distinction between petition for annulment under ss 133(1) and (2) and discretionary power of re-alienation under s 133(3) — Whether former proprietor possesses legal right to determination of request for re-alienation — Nature and scope of State Authority’s discretionary power. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Mandamus — Public duty — Mandatory order compelling public authority to make decision — Whether statutory duty prerequisite to relief — Distinction between compelling performance of public duty and compelling exercise of discretionary power — Whether court may compel authority to entertain request where statute imposes no obligation to decide — Mandamus refused in absence of enforceable statutory duty. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Mandatory injunction — Section 44 Specific Relief Act 1950 — Mandatory order against public authority — Requirement that act sought to be compelled be clearly incumbent under law — Whether State Authority under legal obligation to determine application for re-alienation — Whether relief available in absence of statutory duty. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — Public law proceedings — Appropriate mode of commencement — Whether application to compel exercise of statutory function should be commenced under O 53 Rules of Court 2012 or by Originating Summons — Court assuming procedural propriety without deciding issue where substantive claim failed for absence of legal duty. LAND LAW — National Land Code — Section 133 — Construction of statutory provisions — Petition for annulment — Re-alienation after forfeiture — Whether words “shall” in s 133(3) impose mandatory obligation to determine application for re-alienation — Whether mandatory language operates only upon prior decision to re-alienate — Purposive construction of statutory scheme. LAND LAW — Forfeiture — Functus officio — Previous application for annulment refused — Whether refusal exhausted State Authority’s jurisdiction — Effect of statutory provision preserving power to re-alienate “at any time” — Continuing existence of discretionary power distinguished from existence of enforceable duty. LAND LAW — Forfeiture — Limitation — Laches — Application seeking decision on request for re-alienation — Whether challenge directed at forfeiture or subsequent administrative inaction — Applicability of limitation periods under Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, O 53 Rules of Court 2012 and s 418 National Land Code — Whether doctrines of limitation and laches engaged. LAND LAW — Forfeiture — Service of statutory notices — Form 6A — Form 8A — Alleged defective substituted service — Notices allegedly affixed at adjoining property — Whether validity of service justiciable in proceedings seeking only order compelling decision — Whether challenge to validity of forfeiture confined to appeal under ss 134 and 418 National Land Code. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Originating Summons — Relief against public authority — Mandatory order compelling exercise of statutory function — Affidavit evidence only — Whether disputed issues concerning validity of forfeiture and service of

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Parties (3)

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ma-24ncvc-403-09-2025)