MBG 1223

LAND, PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTLA LAW

Semester 1 Session 2010/2011
ASSIGNMENTS

Assignment 1(a) (5%) – (Group Assignment and Presentation)

Group Presentation Questions

Group 1 20 July 10 Discuss the current position of the principle of indefeasibility under the Malaysian
1) Awang Muhamad Haji Jambol Torrens System since the Federal Court decision in the case of Boonsom Boonyanit v.
2) Ezatul Sharida Ahmad Termizi Adorna Property.
3) Noor Azeyah Kheyon
4) Nurul Hayani Abu Siroh
5) Chong Oi Siang
Group 2 27 July 10 Discuss the application of the tests relating to fixture and chattel in the case of
1) Nurul Aishatul Adha Schindler’s Lifts v. People’s Park China Town Development.
2) Norhaibaiti Hashim
3) Hasnita Hana Hassan
4) Norazreen Abu Bakar
 Group
Group 3 03 August 10
1) Adila Zakaria
2) Mohd Shafiq Rosdi
3) Norhaziyah Mohd Noor
4) Nur Syaimasyaza Mansor
Group 4 21.09.2010
1) Hui Chan Why
2) Didik Ardianto
3) Erwando Rachmadi
4) Nurhanisa Hasmah Rustam
Presentation Questions
At the outset, Daud had been occupying a State Land for ten years by virtue of a
Temporary Occupation License. On 30 January 2009, the State Authority had alienated
that same piece of land to Dawam. Subsequently he was notified to pay the premium of
RM5,000 by 30 April 2009. However he had only made the payment on 15 May 2009.
Nevertheless the Director of Land and Mine had accepted it and had issued the title on
the same date. There were restrictions in interest endorsed on the document of title as
follow: (a) that the said land could not be transferred within a period of ten years from
the date alienation; and (b) that after the period of ten years, the said land could only
be transferred with the consent of the state authority. Notwithstanding the said
restriction in interest, on 30 February 2010 Dawam had transferred the land to Darwina.
The Director of Land and Mine had registered Darwina as the new proprietress1 March
2010. Subsequently she had notified Daud to move out of the land. Your are required to,
inter alia:
(a) Discuss the validity of the alienation of land to Dawam;
(b) The validity of the transfer to Darwina;
(c) The right of Daud to remain on the land.
The State Executive Council had on 30 January 2004 passed a resolution alienating a
piece of land to Berjaya Corporation. Thereafter, on 30 February 2004, the Director of
Land and Mine notified Berjaya Corporation to pay RM10 million premium. The
Corporation was given until 30 May 2004 to make the payment. Berjaya Corporation
applied to the Director of Land and Mine for exemption from or reduction of the,
payment of premium. The Director declined the application through a letter dated 30
April 2004. On 01 June 2004 Berjaya Corporation paid the premium and the title was
issued on the same day. The title contained a restriction of interest that the land shall
not be transferred within a period of five years of its alienation. On 1 February 2009
Berjaya Corporation executed an instrument of transfer transferring half the land to
itself and the other half to its subsidiary company, Berjaya Development. The Registrar
of Titles refused to execute the transfer. You are required to discuss the validity of:
(a) the alienation of the land to Berjaya Corporation; and
(b) the subsequent attempt to transfer of the land to Berjaya development.
 Group Presentation Questions
Group 5 12.10.2010 Semarak Education Centre (SEC) purchases a 10 hectare rubber plantation freehold
1) Agung Nugroho DP Registry Title land in Gombak. The land title discloses no express land use. It appears
2) Lim Tze Shwan that the State Authority first alienates the land to one, Semerbak, in 1960. SEC plans to
3) Imam Buchori develop it into a private college. The Selangor State Director approves the subdivision
4) Sharisa Hussein application with conditions that SEC accepts a 99 year lease and applies for change of
land use from rubber plantation to building. SEC objects those conditions and argues
that the State Director has acted ultra vires.
With reference to the provisions in the National land Code 1965 and the relevant cases
discuss the above issues and advise SEC accordingly.
Group 6 19.10.2010 Alagasamy had entered into a sale and purchase agreement selling the land to Pulai
1) Dimas Maulana Realty. He had thereafter filled up Form 14A transferring the land to the developer.
2) Nazib Faizal However, the Registrar of Title could not execute the transfer due to a private caveat
3) Han Siew Hee lodged by Perdana Property. Alagasamy had suddenly remembered that he had earlier
4) Mohd Sofian Makhtar entered into a negotiation with Perdana Property prior to the sale of the land to Pulai
Perdana. Perdana Property had wanted negotiate the price and also to seek some
clarifications with the authorities relating to planning approvals and other matters.
Alagasamy had notified Perdana Property to remove the caveat. The later had refused
to comply with the notice arguing that the negotiation had not ended and they
therefore had caveatable interest with respect to the land. At the same time,
Alagasamy had leased out the land to Samy Construction for ten years. The lessee
objected to the sale and wanted to caveat the land as well. You are required to discuss:
(a) The parties that may apply for removal of the caveat;
(b) The validity of the caveat lodged by Perdana Property; and
(c) Whether Samy Construction has caveatable interest.
 Group
Group 7
1) Mince Halima
2) Dewi Rozamurlina
3) Siti Aishah Aqilah Jasri
4) Bawa Mustapha
Group 8
1) Endar Tri Prakoso
2) Amir Hossien Asadi
3) Dwi Adi Swarko
4) Adi A. S.
5) Mohd Haffizan
Group 9
1) Muhammad Itsna Farid
2) Wendra Bayu S.
3) Aditya Muhammad Yuwono
4) Dodi Ardianto
5) I. Putu Samskerta
Presentation Questions
26.10.2010 Ali, owner servient land grants an easement to David, the owner of the dominant land
to allow him access to his land from the main road. Subsequently, David sells his land to
Daud. In February 2004 Ali grants tenancy of his house to Ahmad for as long as he
wishes. Ahmad then blocks the access lane to Daud’s land. In August 2004 Ali sells the
house to Arman who subsequently notifies Ahmad to move out of the house within one
month from the date of the notice. At the same time Ali sends a claim to Ahmad for
expenses that he incurs in payment of the quit rent to the State Authority as well as the
assessment rate to the Local Authority for the duration of the tenancy period. Ahmad is
very upset about these turn of events and seeks for your advice.
Advise Ahmad, Daud and Arman on the legal positions of the issues that they are facing.
26.10.2010 One very important condition for application of partition is that all co-proprietors must
either join in or, give consent to the application. However, in practice, it often occurs
that not all co-proprietors share the applicant’s enthusiasm to partition the land. Thus,
the National Land Code 1965 provides express provisions for such eventuality.
Nevertheless, the courts’ interpretations of those provisions have not been uniformed,
specifically with respect to application by majority co-proprietors.
With reference to the relevant case law, discuss this issue.
26.10.2010 The purpose of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and the
Regulations is to provide adequate protection to purchasers of property comprised in a
housing scheme. George J in Khau Daw Yau v. Kin Nam Realty Development Sdn. Bhd.
[1983] 1 MLJ 335, at p 341 observed that: “The scheme of the Housing Developers
(Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and of the Rules of 1970 is to provide a measure of
protection to purchasers of housing accommodation in a housing development against
unscrupulous developers.”
With reference to the relevant case law discuss that observation.
Assignment 1(b) (5%) – (Group Assignment) – Submission Date: 21 September 2010
Group 1
1) Awang Muhamad Haji Jambol
2) Ezatul Sharida Ahmad Termizi
3) Noor Azeyah Kheyon
4) Nurul Hayani Abu Siroh
5) Chong Oi Siang
Group 2
1) Nurul Aishatul Adha
2) Norhaibaiti Hashim
3) Hasnita Hana Hassan
4) Norazreen Abu Bakar
Group 3
5) Adila Zakaria
1) Mohd Shafiq Rosdi
2) Norhaziyah Mohd Noor
3) Nur Syaimasyaza Mansor
Group 4
5) Hui Chan Why
1) Didik Ardianto
2) Erwando Rachmadi
3) Nurhanisa Hasmah Rustam
Group 5
1) Agung Nugroho DP
2) Lim Tze Shwan
3) Imam Buchori
4) Sharisa Hussein
Dato’ Lela had created a charged in favour of CM Bank as a security of a loan granted by the bank in
relation of his land under Land Office Title. Dato’ Lela had defaulted the repayment of the loan and the
bank issued Form 16E notice of demand. Subsequently, CM Bank applied for an order of sales to the
High Court. Dato’ Lela was not pleased with the bank’s action and would prefer that it takes possession
of the land instead of selling it off in an auction.
Discuss the issues that arose in the above case and advice Dato’ Lela and CM Bank accordingly.
Raman Chettiar advances a RM30,000 loan to Lawrence Yap. The latter hands over his Issue Document
of Title to the former and executes Form 16A for the purpose of creating a charge with respect to the
said land. Unfortunately, the charge could not be registered when it is presented to the Registrar
because the quit rent receipt is not produced. The chettiar then applies to lodge a lien holder’s caveat
against the land. Unfortunately, the land is not now subjected to a prohibitory order. It appears that,
another creditor, Ah Long, obtains a judgement order against Lawrence Yap (the judgement debtor) in
relation to debts owes by the former to the latter. Ah Long, as the judgement creditor succeeds in
entering a prohibitory order against the said land. With reference to the provisions in the National Land
Code 1965 and the relevant case law, determine the party with the better right in relation to the land.
Mr. Lee, as the registered proprietor, charges his land in favour of U Bank as security for a loan granted
to Mrs. Lee. Mrs. Lee defaults repayment of the loan; U Bank successfully obtains an order of sale. Mr.
Lee wants to appeal against the order under section 256(3) of the National Land Code 1965. Do you
think he would succeed? Discuss things that Mr. Lee needs to establish if he were to succeed in the
appeal.
Lee Lian charges her land to Ban Bin Bank as security for loan. When the chargor fails to pay back the
loan, the chargee wants to apply to the court for an order of sale. Lee Lian knows that under section
256(3) of the National Land Code 1965, the court will only issue the order for sale if she can satisfy the
court as to ‘the existence of cause to the contrary’.
With reference to relevant case, discuss the circumstances that as to existence of cause to the contrary.
Ah Long gives a RM50,000 loan to Karuppan and the latter charges his land in favour of the former as
security. As he is new to the legal lending business and unaware of his rights under the law Ah Long
sends his thugs to harass Karuppan when he defaults in the repayment of the loan. Karuppan strongly
objects to the action and advises Ah Long to use his legal remedies under the National Land Code 1965.
Advise Ah Long on the remedies and procedures for their application under the 1965 Code.
Group 6
5) Dimas Maulana
1) Nazib Faizal
2) Han Siew Hee
3) Mohd Sofian Makhtar
Group 7
5) Mince Halima
1) Dewi Rozamurlina
2) Siti Aishah Aqilah Jasri
3) Bawa Mustapha
Group 8
1) Endar Tri Prakoso
2) Amir Hossien Asadi
3) Dwi Adi Swarko
4) Adi A. S.
5) Mohd. Haffizan Abdul Razak
Group 9
1) Muhammad Itsna Farid
2) Wendra Bayu S.
3) Aditya Muhammad Yuwono
4) Dodi Ardianto
5) I. Putu Samskerta
Lim Contractor is facing a serious financial difficulty. His good friend and former classmate, Maha
Chettiar, advances him some money. Lim Contractor if very grateful to Maha Chettiar and orally agrees
to execute a charge of his land the favour of the chettiar security for the loan. Subsequently he executes
the Form 16A and deposits the IDT with Maha Chettiar. However, before he submits the documents to
the Registrar of Title for registration, the High Court issues a bankruptcy declaration against Lim
Contractor and the Official Assignee applies to the court for the sale of the land. Maha Chettiar is very
worried that he might not be able to rely on the land as security anymore. Advise Maha Chettiar if it is
possible for him to use the equitable principle to protect his interest.
Ben borrows RM5 million from Bond Bank. As security, Ben creates a charge his RM10 million (value of
the land) Land Office title land in favour of Bond Bank. Under the loan agreement, Ben will repay the
money within five years by monthly instalments. Subsequently, Ben enters into an agreement with
Petro-Jet to develop part of the said land into a petrol station. Petro-Jet advances RM2 million to Ben.
Bond Bank allows Ben to create a second charge with respect to the same land in favour of Petro-Jet.
Unfortunately, the Local Authority rejects Ben’s application for planning permission for the project. Ben
fails to repay Petro-Jet the money advanced. Petro-Jet is now contemplating taking possession of the
charged land. With reference to the National Land Code 1965 and any relevant case law, advise Petro-
Jet the remedies that are available to an undischarged chargee of this nature and the conditions and the
correct procedure to exercise those remedies.
Jane had created a charge in relation to her Land office title land in favour of Yue Finance as security for
her housing loan payable by monthly instalments. However, she had defaulted in her instalments and
the bank had notified her of the default using Form 16E. Having received no response from Jane, Yue
Finance thereafter had delivered Form 16K notice for taking possession of the land. Jane had refused to
neither move out nor give possession of the land to Yue Finance. The finance company then had applied
to the court for the sale of the land under Form 16G. Discuss the issues and advise Yue Finance.
Under a sale and purchase agreement, Dolah agrees to sell his land to Najib. However, the land is
subject to a restriction of interest that prohibits its transfer without the State Authority’s approval.
While Dolah is taking the necessary action to obtain the approval, he gives the Issue Document of Title
(IDT) to Najib. He then deposits it with IOU Bank as security for overdraft facility. Thereafter, the State
Authority rejects Dolah’s application. He immediately notifies Najib about the rejection and requests
him to return the IDT. Before he receives any reply from Najib, he receives a notice of sale of the land
from IOU Bank due to Najib’s default in the repayment of the overdraft facility.
Discuss the issues and advise Dolah.
Assignment 2 (20%) – Group Assignment

Discuss the various aspects and causes of environmental problems that can be related to construction industry and the relevant Malaysian laws
that govern them.

Assignment 3 (10%) – Individual Assignment

Discuss the right of a land owner to object an application for planning permission by his/her neighbour.

Assignment 4 (20%) – Individual Assignment

Discuss the right, duty and liability of a developer to apply for strata title in relation to a strata title development.