|
Land matters
22/05/2007 ARTICLES OF LAW by BHAG SINGH
A LEADING national newspaper highlighted the plight of a person who had
toiled on a plot of land for 10 years whilst trying to get the land title.
He had spoken to the officer at the Land Office several times about his
application and was told that the matter was being attended to.
He even received a letter from the Land Office, acknowledging his
application, which was given a registration number. Being under the
impression that he would eventually get the land, he not only toiled on it
but spent some RM150,000 to develop it so that it could be productive for
agricultural purposes.
However, at the end of his quest to get the title, he received a letter
stating that his application could not be considered because the land had
been alienated to an agency or organisation, whatever that meant.
He later discovered, to his dismay, that not only had his application been
rejected, but the plot had now been registered in the name of the wife of
the very officer he had been dealing with at the Land Office.
He was subsequently approached, on behalf of the officer, to lease the land
at a substantial monthly rental. He now fears that he will be evicted from
the agricultural plot, which is his only source of income to support his
family.
All land is vested in the state. Legally and technically, a person does not
acquire any rights to land which he occupies or even improves.
In our country’s scheme of land administration under the National Land Code,
a person only acquires an interest in a piece of land upon the land being
alienated to him by the state, either on the basis of a grant in perpetuity
or a lease or a sublease derived there from.
A person may be allowed to occupy land under a temporary occupation licence.
However, such a licence is only to enable occupation, either for living or
agricultural or other specific purposes. This is for a specified period,
which would usually be on a year-to-year basis and always on the payment of
a fee. It is, however, no guarantee that renewals will be granted, though
this is not unknown.
Where a person occupies land illegally – without any permission – he is a
squatter and a trespasser and, therefore, has no rights. Even if such a
person has a temporary occupation licence, his rights would be subordinate
to a person who has the land alienated to him and therefore becomes its
registered proprietor.
Thus, on the strict principles of the law, the victim has no right to the
land which has been alienated to, and registered in the name of, another
person.
If the new registered owner was already an applicant for the land alienated
to her, the victim should have been informed of such earlier application,
without the need to engage in conduct which could lead him to have the
expectation that the land would be alienated to him.
However, the situation is worsened by the fact that the person who has
become the owner is the wife of the officer he was dealing with. It is
likely that the officer would have been aware of his wife’s actions, and
this would be a wrongdoing in spirit, if not in law.
What should the victim have done to protect himself or ensure that he did
not lose out? He should not have invested in improving the land in any
substantial manner until he was sure that it had been alienated to him.
This, however, is easier said than done. This is because the process of
alienation of land may take years when the land in question applied for is
uncultivated and in an undeveloped area.
Often, the person who has toiled to develop the land and make it profitable
and has been in occupation for a considerable time, usually and eventually
has the land alienated to him unless vested interests, dishonest practices
or policy considerations intervene.
It would be natural for an ordinary, honest citizen to assume, and expect,
that if he is given permission to occupy and improve unalienated land which
is undeveloped, he will be first in line in the successful consideration of
an application for alienation.
However, such expectations can only be realised on the basis of the
assumption that there is in the circumstances exercise of good conscience,
honest administration and proper exercise of powers on the part of those
involved in administration.
The prima facie transaction would appear to give the registered owner the
legal right. The remedy, in such a case, lies less in the courts because of
the legal principles and technicality that could be invoked on account of
administrative and executives powers and discretion. Therefore, the
elimination of such wrongdoing can only be brought about by the executive
branch ensuring that powers are exercised honestly and in good conscience. |
