Rimdaya Sdn Bhd v The Government of the State of Sabah & Anor

Appellant(s): Rimdaya Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent(s):

• The Government Of The State Of Sabah
• The Director Of Lands And Surveys Department, Sabah

• YA Dato' Ahmad Zaidi Bin Ibrahim
• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab

• The appellant's land was compulsorily acquired by the first respondent under Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance 1950 (LAO 1950) for a public purpose, with two gazette notifications published.
• The appellant filed an Originating Summons seeking compensation after the second gazette, within the 12-month period stipulated by Section 33 LAO 1950.
• Subsequent to the filing of the Originating Summons, the respondents revoked the acquisition under Section 10A LAO 1950, contending that the appellant was no longer entitled to compensation, which led to the High Court dismissing the appellant's claim.

• Whether the ownership of the acquired land had fully vested in the first respondent upon the second gazette notification, thereby entitling the appellant to compensation under Section 6 LAO 1950.
• Whether the revocation of the acquisition by the respondents under Section 10A LAO 1950 was valid, specifically regarding the number of gazette notifications required for such revocation.
• Whether Section 10A LAO 1950 is unconstitutional for infringing Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution by allegedly failing to provide adequate compensation upon the revocation of a compulsory acquisition.

• The Court held that while Section 3(3) LAO 1950 provides for vesting upon the second gazette, the acquisition process was not legally completed as there was no evidence of formal registration and endorsement on the land titles.
• The Court affirmed the validity of the revocation, ruling that Section 10A(1) LAO 1950 only requires one gazette notification for revocation, and upon such revocation, ownership of the land reverts to the original owner.
• The Court declared Section 10A LAO 1950 constitutional, distinguishing between acquisition (which requires compensation under Article 13(2) FC) and revocation (where land reverts to the owner); the appellant's remedy is limited to seeking damages for actual loss or injury under Section 10A(3), not compensation for the land itself.