Pentadbir Pejabat Daerah Dan Tanah Petaling v S.E.A Housing Corporation Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s): Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling

Respondent(s): S.E.A Housing Corporation Sdn Bhd

• YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin

• The respondent was the registered proprietor of a land parcel (Lot 8914), the title for which was never issued to it by the appellant.
• Upon receiving a notice for rent arrears for Lot 8914, the respondent was advised by the appellant's technical division that the lot was a "mistake" and overlapped with another, leading the respondent to ignore the notice.
• The appellant subsequently forfeited Lot 8914 for non-payment, despite having internally corrected its error regarding the lot's existence, and later declared the land was reserved for public purposes without compensation.

• Whether the forfeiture of the subject land by the appellant was an unlawful "backdoor" attempt to compulsorily acquire the land, contravening the National Land Code, Land Acquisition Act 1960, and the Federal Constitution.
• Whether the appellant's admitted errors, conflicting reports, and misleading advice negated the validity of the forfeiture, even if procedural requirements for serving the notice were met.
• Whether strict procedural compliance with forfeiture provisions under the National Land Code is sufficient, or if constitutional safeguards and the Wednesbury reasonableness test must also be satisfied.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the forfeiture was an unlawful "backdoor" acquisition, contravening the NLC, Land Acquisition Act 1960, and Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.
• The Court held that the appellant's admitted errors, misleading advice to ignore the notice, and failure to rectify the title's misdescription rendered the forfeiture unjust and unreasonable, irrespective of procedural compliance.
• Forfeiture, being quasi-criminal and affecting fundamental property rights, requires not only procedural propriety but also adherence to constitutional safeguards and the Wednesbury reasonableness test, which the appellant failed.