Subramaniam A/L Vellasamy & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang & Anor

Appellant(s): Subramaniam A/L Vellasamy

Respondent(s):

• Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang
• Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Selangor

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
• YA Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng

• The appellants' land was subject to compulsory acquisition by the first respondent for a highway project, with a notice gazetted in 2015 and compensation offers made via Form H in 2017, which the appellants accepted.
• Despite acceptance, no compensation was paid, and in May 2021, the respondents gazetted both the withdrawal of the original acquisition and the re-commencement of acquisition for a smaller portion of the land.
• Subsequently, in December 2021, the first respondent issued notices of withdrawal (Form LB) and simultaneously new acquisition notices (Forms E and F) to the appellants, prompting them to seek judicial review.

• Whether the service of Form H, without actual physical possession or issuance of Form K, constitutes "possession" under Sections 18 and 35(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA 1960), thereby precluding the State Authority from withdrawing the acquisition.
• Whether the respondents' simultaneous withdrawal of the original land acquisition and re-commencement of acquisition for a smaller portion of land was lawful and not tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
• Whether the appellants had a legitimate expectation to receive the original compensation and if the respondents' actions contravened Article 13 of the Federal Constitution regarding deprivation of property without adequate compensation.

• The Court held that "possession" under Sections 18 and 35(1) of the LAA 1960, which restricts withdrawal, requires either actual physical possession of the land or the issuance of Form K, not merely the service of Form H.
• As there was no evidence of actual possession by the respondents and Form K had not been issued, the first respondent was lawfully entitled to withdraw the original acquisition and simultaneously re-commence acquisition for a reduced land area.
• The Court found no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the respondents' actions, affirming that the decision was not contrary to law or Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, and thus dismissed the appeals.