Berjaya Hills Resort Berhad v Pengarah Negeri Pejabat Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Pahang

Appellant(s):

• Avetani Sdn Bhd
• United Approach Sdn Bhd
• Berjaya Hills Bhd
• Sumland Development Sdn Bhd
• Bukit Tinggi Resort Bhd
• Semangat Cergas Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Pengarah Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Kerajaan Negeri Pahang

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin

• The appellants, registered proprietors of 330 parcels of land in Bentong, Pahang, challenged the respondent's decision to issue substantially increased quit rent bills for 2023, applied retrospectively to 2020-2022.
• The increased rates stemmed from the Pahang Land (Amendment) (No. 4) Rules 2019, which substituted rule 22 of the Pahang Land Rules 1992, and a related gazette declaring the area as "Town Land".
• The High Court dismissed all five related judicial review applications, and the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal on four grounds alleging procedural impropriety and substantive ultra vires action by the State Authority.

• Whether the revision of rent rates under section 101(5) of the National Land Code required the National Land Council's specific approval of the quantum of revised rates, or merely approval of the timing of the revision exercise.
• Whether a technical defect in the "Town Land" gazette declaration under section 11(d) of the NLC (declared before final survey endorsement, later corrected by corrigendum) invalidated the separate exercise of setting revised rent rates under section 14(1)(e).
• Whether the retrospective amendment removing the word "new" from the substituted rule 22 (via the Pahang Land (Amendment)(No. 8) Rules 2022) rendered the State Authority's action ultra vires or substantively unlawful.

• The Court of Appeal admitted the Minutes of the 70th and 71st National Land Council Meetings as fresh evidence and held these established that the Council had given a blanket "approval" as to the timing for states to revise rent rates, satisfying section 101(5); applying a purposive construction, the Court held the Council's approval role concerns *when* revision may occur, not the quantum of rates, which is a matter for the State Authority under sections 14(1)(e) and 101(3).
• The Court held that the technical error in the Town Land gazette (declared before survey endorsement) was a distinct exercise from the rent-rate revision under section 14(1)(e), was subsequently rectified by corrigendum, and did not constitute a procedural impropriety vitiating the quit rent decision; similarly, delayed endorsement of revised rents on title documents under section 101(6) was merely an administrative step not affecting validity.
• The Court found the retrospective removal of the word "new" was a bona fide corrective clarification consistent with the State Authority's original intention (to apply revised rates to existing, not merely future, alienated lands) and did not amount to an ultra vires substantive challenge; all five appeals were unanimously dismissed with costs of RM20,000 each to the respondent.