Lee Kean Choon v Khoo San & Ors

Appellant(s): Lee Kean Choon

Respondent(s):

• Khoo San
• Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Selangor
• Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang

• YAA Datuk Seri Utama Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh
• YA Dato' Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera
• YA Dato' Lee Swee Seng

• The appellant and the first respondent were co-proprietors of two plots of land, initially governed by a 1971 agreement that delineated separate portions for their exclusive use.
• Following a government land acquisition, the original land was severed into two new titles (Geran 326882 and Geran 326883), with the appellant and first respondent remaining co-proprietors.
• The first respondent unilaterally applied for partition of these two plots, which was approved by the second and third respondents, leading to the issuance of four new titles, without the appellant's knowledge or proper notification.

• Whether the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 418 of the National Land Code 1965 (NLC) was within the statutory three-month period, which hinged on the interpretation of "communicated to him".
• Whether the phrase "communicated to him" in Section 418 NLC requires an official letter from the Land Office.
• Whether the substituted service of the notice of the partition application was valid and when the statutory three-month period for filing an appeal commenced.

• The Court held that "communicated to him" in Section 418 NLC requires official, written, and comprehensive notification from the Land Administrator, conforming to the requirements of Sections 143(4) and 431 NLC.
• The Court found that the decision was properly communicated to the appellant on 18 August 2021, when all relevant documents were served, rendering the Originating Summons filed on 3 November 2021 within the statutory three-month period.
• The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the partition decisions and cancelling the new titles, reinstating the original titles, due to the first respondent's non-disclosure of the 1971 agreement and the Land Administrator's failure to properly notify the appellant and afford him his statutory right to object and be heard.