contents : syarat nyata, tersirat dan kepentingan, kategori dan penggunaan tanah, law of forfeiture in malaysia and all rights given to proprietor P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!

1. Pengelasan, Kategori, Penggunaan,
Rampasan & Hak-hak Pemilik ke atas Tanah
I. Pengelasanadalah berdasarkandari sudut lokasinya(s. 51)
A. Kebolehlupusan berdasarkan pengelasan
1. Tanah atas garis pantai boleh
2. Selain daripada tu x leh langsung dilupukan
II. Kategori tanah berdasarkanjenis kegunaannya (s.52)
Pengelasantanah
tanah di atas garis pantai
tanah bandar
tanah pekan
tanah desapinggirpantai
dasar laut
Jenis tanah
pertanian bangunan perindustrian

2. III. Tujuan pengelasan dan kategori
B. Pembangunan teratur dan tersusun (contoh kawasan industri akan kurangkan
kepadtan penduduk untuk menjaga kesihatan awam)
C. Maximum untilisation
D. Identification for future acquisition
IV. Penggunaan Tanah adalah tertakluk kepada SYARAT-SYARAT TERSIRAT
A. Syarat Tdk termasuk apa2 sekatan kepentingan atau apa2 syarat samada
nyata atau tersirat dlm mana2 perjanjian yg PBN adalah bukan satu pihak
B. Dikenali sbg syarat tersirat sebab x ditulis secara khusus dalam document
of title (kena cek ktn syarat2 tu)
Syarat tersirat bagi tanah Seksyen Contoh syarat
pertanian 115 Kena continually cultivated
bangunan 116 Kena bina within 2 years
perindusrian 117 Kena mula operasi dalam masa 3 tahun
C. Kalau syarat tersirat conflict dengan syarat nyata, maka syarat nyata akan
prevail : 115(3), 116(3), 117 (2)
1. Konsep ni hanya terpakai selepas KTN dikuatkuasakan pada 1/1/1966
D. Untuk tanah yang didaftarkan sebelum 1/1/ 1966, ikut s. 54
(a)tanah desa, pekan, bandar ynag dipegang oleh Pejabat Tanah: syarat nyata
iaitu untuk pertanian shj
(b) tanah bandar dan pekan yang dipegang oleh Pejabat Pendaftar, syaratnya
ialah tidak digunakan untuk pertanian dan perindustrian
1. Contoh kes sebelum KTN dikuatkuasakan : Garden city Bhd v Collector of land
revenue

3. Untuk membuat permohonanp pecah lot tanah, pemilik diminta untuk
mohon penggunaan tukar syarat. Antara syarat kelulusan pertukaran tu,
pemilik kena bersetuju yang dorg kena bayar premium tambahan n
terima tanah as leasehold bukan lagi freehold-diax setujuso teruskan
pembangunan-tanah kena forfeit-cabar fasal cap getah atas IDT
Issue: Sama ada tanah di bwh Pajakan Negeri dan telah diendors di atas
IDT perkataan ‘pajakan untuk tanah pertanian’ boleh digunakan utk
mendirikan bangunan selepas KTN?
Held: sbb kes ni dah lama en so mahkamah privy kata sbbkan tulisan tu
dah tak jelas so x leh terhadkan pengunnaan kepada pertanian shj
V. Pengunaan tanah tertakluk kepada SYARAT NYATA juga
A. Budi bicara mahkamah untuk tentukan syarat nyata tidak terhad masa
pemberian milik dibuat sahaja
B. Tetapi kuasa PBN untuk tentukan syarat nyata semasa permohonan ubah
syarat di bawah s. 124 telah banyak kali dinyatakan oleh mahkamah
sebagai terhad.
1. Pengarah Tanah dan Galian v Sri Lempah Enterprise
Facts  the applicant , registered proprietor of a land held in perpetuity- applied to the
federal government for sub-division of the land, plus conversion to have the
express condition to allow the applicant to put up a hotel.
 SA informed = that the application would be approved on condition not the title in
perpetuity but a lease of 99 years.
 SA argued that section 124(5)(c) is wide enough for the land exco. to impose such a
condition.
Issue whether s, 124(5)(c) is wide enough to curtail the exercise of those rights by the
imposition of a new condition, which has the effect of changing the very character of the
grant the appellants now hold
Held  The local planning authority is empowered to grant permission to develop land
'subject to such conditions as they think fit'.
 But this does not mean that they have an uncontrolled discretion to impose
whatever conditions they like".
 In this case, that the committee does not have the power it claims to have.

4. 2. Ipoh Garden v Pengarah Tanah Galian
Facts applicant asked for an order that the decision of the respondent pursuant to the
application for sub-division of the applicant in respect of certain lands be varied because it
need to surrender its freehold title.
applicant also asked the court to direct the respondent to approve the application for sub-
division without imposing the conditions objected to.
Held (1) to impose conditions for the approval of the application for sub-division which were
ultra vires the National Land Code;
(2) the application for sub-division should be referred back to the relevant authority for
reconsideration according to law.
C. Kuasa PBN untuk tentukan syarat nyata dan sekatan kepentingan
1. Punca kuasa : s.120
2. Syarat2 yang boleh dikenakan : s. 121 n 122
3. Kalau ada undang2 kecil yg bercanggah dengan syarat dan kepentingan, s.108
kata syarat nyata akan prevail
4. Syarat nyata n sekatan pentingan mesti tertera di dalam dokumen hak milik
VI. Pengunaan tanah tertakluk kepada SEKATAN KEPENTINGAN juga
A. S. 105 : setiap syarat dan sekatan akan mula berkuat kuasa dari tarikh
pemberian milik tanah
1. Dr Ti V Pendaftar Geran-Geran Tanah Negeri Selangor
Fakta  Sekatangan kepentingan yang terlibat di dalm kes ini ialah dr ti tidak dibenarkan
untuk memindah milimatau memajak tanah yang diberi kepadanya dalam temphn15
tahun yang pertama.
 Tanah diberi milik pada1964 tetapi pendaftaran berlaku pada 1967 (lepas bayar
premium dan fee)

5.  1980, dr tee nak jual
Held  Sek 78(3) : pemberianmilik hanya akan berkuatkusa selepas hak milik didaftarkan,
so sekatan kepentingan bermula selepas 1967, dr ti x leh jual sbb tak cukup 15 tahun
VII. Rampasan/ Forfeiture
A. Is a power of SA to take back alienated land from registered proprietor krn
dua sbb tu
B. For non-payment (s. 100)
1. Sewaan akan menjadi hutang pada bulan januari setiap tahun kalau x dibayar,
bila jadi hutang SA boleh forfeit
2. Procedure
97(1): Land Administrator bagi notis of demand form 6A
97 (2) : LA endorce notisto dalam dokumen hak milik
a. Pow hing v Register of Titles, Malacca
The endorsement is a mandatory requirements, the failure of land
administrator render the forfeiture to be invalid
Rationale : to give notice to all existing and prospective interest in the
land that a forfeiture is imminent if proprietor tak comply with the
notice
98(1): LA serve the notice to the concened bodies under s. 98 (1)
a. Bank boleh bayarkan dulu tunggakan sewa tahunan lepas tu boleh
claim balik kat tuan tanah, kalau dia x nk bayar s. 98(3) (a) bank
boleh take civil action kat court
99 : kalau tunggakan daah bayar, the notice will cease to take effect
100 : klau tetap gak tak bayar sampai la temph notis tu tamat, LA akan
keluarkan perintah rampasan

6. 130(1) –borang 8A : LA akan wartakan notis rampasan dalam borang 8A
C. For breach of condition both express and implied (s. 127 (1)(a))
1. Nature of condition (s.103)
Type of nature Examples of implied condition
Conditions requiring continuous
performance
 115 (e) : untuk tanah pertanian ,tanama kena berterusan
 116 (1) (c) : untuk tanah bangunan, semua bangunan
kena sentiasa repair/ jagabaik
 125 (1) : ada breach kalau x continue buat
Condition subject to a fix term
(can be either to act to refrain)
Do: 116 (1)(a) : untuk tanah bangunan, bangunan must be
erected within 2 years
2. Example of breach of express condition: Collecter of Land Revenue v South
Malaysia Industries Bhd
Industrial Land is alienated to respondent and subjected to two express
conditions (soly erection of a company and use for light industry). It
rented out the land and the tenant use the land for storing of industrial
chemicals and fertilisers.
Held : not legitimate purpose under the lease and breach the condition
D. Upon breach, PBN ada choice of proceedings
1. Ada dua pilihan
127(1A) : send a notice to fine the registered proprietor
128 : send a notice to remedy the breach
2. Kalau pemilik x comply pada mana2 notis kat atas, s. 129: LA can holding an
enquiry ( tindakan untuk menguatkuasakan) to forfeit the land

7. E. Procedure to forfeit
1. Form 7B : Untuk penguatkuasaan tu, LA kena issue notis 7B (notis tunjuk sebab)
dulu kepada pemilik tanah and bagi pada pihak2 berkepentingan bawah s. 98(1)
Pemilik tanah kena muncul di hadapan LA sebelum tempoh notis tu habis
2. 129(4) : LA akan buat enquiry/ siasat untuk tahu kenapa the land should not be
forfeited
3 courses of action
Kalau breach dah remedied, notice to forfeit akan dibatalkan
PBN boleh extent masa untuk remedy the breach n PBN kena specify
tindakan yang perlu dilakukan untuk remedi the breach
a. Che Minah v Peentadbir Tanah Daerah
Pl, the registered proprietor for agriculture land tapi dia ada bina
surau n kedai so tanah dia kena forfeit and def mintak pl tunjuk sbb
knp tanah dia x dirampas, pastu def made an order, pl kena remedi
kan that breach within 15 days.
Court held kegagalan def specify what she should do to remedy the
land adalah satu kesalahan sbb tu mandatory requirements
3. S. 130 (1): notis rampasan akan diwartakan menggunakan borang 8A dan
rampasan akan dikuatkuasakan
F. Kesan sekiranya tanah dirampas
131  Tanah akan dikembalikan kepada SA
 Discharged from any sort of ownership
132 SA boleh re alienate kat org lain kalau x de org appeal (lepas 3 bulan), kalau da
appeal, kena tunggu selesai appeal
Pemungut hasil
tanah v UMBC
SA akan dapat any builidings existing on the land without having to pay any
compensation

8. G. Selepas tanah dirampas, pemilik boleh ambil tindakan
1. Kalau ada ground nak appeal, then appeal under 134, read together with
418
Appleal Kena buat within 3 months
ada dua je ground nak appeal
a. PBN failed to comply with the requirement of NLC provision (Pow
Hing v Register of Title Malacca
b. the order of forfeiture is made contrary to provision under NLC
2. 134(2): Kalau appeal on the grounds yg x dibernarkan, mmg x kan dpt -
UMBC v Pemungut Hasil Kota Tinggi
Appeal against for forfeiture on the ground of equtable relief was
dismissed
3. Klau x de ground nak appeal, apply annulment under 133 (bayar ganti
rugi)
Absolute discretion of SA sama ada nak annul ke tak, kalau dapat annul,
ada balasan yang pmilik kena buat
If forfeiture for non payment, bayar maksimum 6 kali ganda jumlah yang
dia hutang
If forfeiture for breach of condition, bayar kos perbelanjaan disebabkan
oleh rampasan tu
VIII. Hak Pemilik
A. s.44(1): any person or body whom land has been alienated, reserved land has
been leased or a temporary occupation license has been granted in respect of any
land. Shall be entitled to ;
(a) The right of air space.
(b) The right to support of land.

9. (c) The right of access.
B. Sek. 44(1)(a) :Penikmatan udara & tanah secara eksklusif setaka
munasabah utk penikmatan itu
1. Di dalam sistem toren, penikmatan tanah adalah terhad, sebab ada perkataan
munasabah mengikut undang2
2. Konsep pemilik memiliki tanah dari perut bumi hingga ke langit berdasarkan
legal maxim “Ujus est solumejus est usque ad coelom et at inferos” yang
bermaksud Pemilik memiliki segalanya merangkumi seluruh ruang udara
hingga ke pusat bumi TIDAK TERPAKAI
3. Jika berlaku perlanggaran, mulakan tindakan dibawah undang-undang tort:
Pencerobohan
Kacau ganggu
Sek.19(2) Akta Penerbangan Sivil 1969: Bayar ganti rugi
Boleh mintak remedi damages or injunksi
C. Right to air space: Sejauh mana seseorg pemilik tanah boleh
menguatkuasakan hak terhadap ruang udara atas tanahnya?
Pasal Kapal terbang (protection of right of air craft)
1. Lacroix v Queen (kes kanada) konsisten dengan Sek. 19 Akta Penerbangan
Sivil 1969 Malaysia
Pemilik minta ganti rugi sebab pemerintah buat satu laluan bagi kapal
terbang di atas tanahnya tapi gagal buktikan kerugian yang dia alami
Held: Pemilik tanah punya hak terhad berkaitan dgn ruang udara di atas
tanahnya.
Ia terhad kpd apa yg ia boleh miliki atau duduki bagi kegunaan dan
penikmatan tanahnya. dengan mendirikan bangunan atau struktur di
atas anahnya, ini tdk bermakna ia mempunyai possessi ke atas ruang
udara ke atasnya

10. 2. Sek. 19 Akta Penerbangan Sivil 1969 Malaysia : Melarang pemilik untuk
menjadikan penerbangan di atas tanahnya sebagai asa tindakannya,
(Bernstein v Skyviews) dia kena buktikan aktiviti kapalterbang
menyebabkan kerosakan/ kacau ganggu seperti keluar asap dari
kapalterbang & sebabkan pencemaran udara yg teruk hingga ganggu
pemilik utk menikmati haknya sbb
(Swetland v Curtis Airport Corporation)
a. Kapal terbang yg melalui ruang udara atas permukaan tanah milik
seseorg bukan suatu pencerobohan selagi tdk jejaskan kegunaan &
kenikmatannya
b. Memandangkan ruang udara yg mungkin tdk boleh diduduki oleh
plaintiff, maka tdk berhak utk halang org lain menggunakan
tanahnya
c. Had suatu ruang udara di mana pemilik tanah boleh menduduki
ruang udara ditentukan mengikut keadaan kes.
Fasal selain kapal terbang
3. Karuppannan v Balakrishnen
Side windows of A’s hotel protrude into R’s land.
S44(1)(a) gave R exclusive use and enjoyment of air space above surface
of land though not right to heaven above.
A has no right to encroach into airspace of R’s land unless he allows it.
4. Woolerton v Richardson Constain Ltd : mahkamah kena seimbangkan
kepentingan hak eksklusif pemilik dan hak org awam
Facts ada pembinaan sebelah tanah owner, masa pembinaan pejabat pos tu, ada crane telah
masuk dalam tanah sebelah dan bila stop, crane tu hang yang mana stone yang tergantung
tu asik bergoyang bila berangin, so the owner mintak injunction untuk stopkan
pembinaan pejabat pos tu
Held walaupun defendan dibernarkan untuk teruskan tapi dia kena take precautionary steps
by trying to reduce the risk of endangering the neighbour. Sebabkan pembinaan defendan

11. untuk public purpose dan defendang setuju dengan arahn mahkamah so pembinaan itu
dibenarkan.
D. Sek. 44(1)(b) : Hak pengantungan ke atas tanah
1. Rasional : Sesuatu tanah tdk blh secara fizikal berdiri dgn sendirinya, thus
A landowner is to have the land supported by neighbouring land as well
as right not to have that support removed.
It is a duty of the adjacent owner to support and not do something on his
land or property that might endanger the property of others.
2. Sebelum NLC enfore, kita pakai Dalton principle: hanya lepas 30 tahun milik
tanah, baru dapat hak pergantungan ni, tapi kita dah x pakai prinsip ni
3. Peruntukan : Right to support of land in natural state by adjacent land and all
other natural rights subsisting in respect thereof.
4. hak yang bersyarat bukan mutlak (perlu penuhi elemen baru dapat hak tu)
Tanah yg terltk di paras yg bawah memberi pergantungan kpd
tanah di paras atas
Tanah itu bersebelahan(hak milik mesti asing)
Tanah tersebut mestilah dlm keadaan semula jadi untuk dpt hak
pergantungan
a. Maksud natural: unburdened with buildings or unweakend by
excavation
b. Madam Chah Siam v Chop Choy Kong Kongsi
Facts  the mine is a deep open cast mine worked by monitor.
 the working face of the mine was approaching near to the boundary next to the pond.
 On one night, the bank of the pond gave away and the water of the pond poured into
the mine bearing away the greater part of the fish in the pond.
Held  The rule set out in Salmond Treatise Law of Torts is : Every piece of land has a natural
easement of support from the adjoining land

12.  If additional support is needed because of alteration, right must be acquired by grant,
prescription
 Thus, the land which contains the pond was entitled to such a degree of support as it
would have required in its unexcavated condition, and had no right to the additional
support required by reason of its weakened state
Tdk terdpt apa-apa kekukuhan tambahan (additional support) yg
diberikan terhadap tanah itu
a. Konsep asal: the owner cannot expect additional support from the
adjacent land if his land is proven to be in its weakened state.
b. But according to salmon treaties : The right to require additional
support must acquire by grant, prescription or otherwise.
c. Wong See Lee v Ting Siik Lay
Held  duty of care owed by landowners to their neighbours not to disturb or withdraw
natural right to support should no longer be questioned in this country as a cause
of action in negligence and/or nuisance, where the breach of such duty has caused
injury to the adjoining property.
 easement is a right attaching to one piece of land entitling the owner thereof to
exercise some right over adjacent land in other ownership …Among recognised
easements are right of way, right to oght, watercourse and support of buildings”.
 Easement must be registered.
E. S. 44(1)(c) :The right of access to foreshore and seabed
1. Landowner has right to access to land which abuts on foreshore or any river or
public place subject to any express provision in document of title, lease or
license.
2. S46(1) If any part of land is affected by encroachment by sea or any river it shall
revert to and vest in State Authority in accordance w provision of S49.

13. 3. Re Sithambaram Chettiar
A was owner of land in 1925 adjoined in sea. Sea encroach upon land and
whole or major part of land submerged in water. Sea gradually retreat
and whole of it became above high water mark. Collector refused claim of
A over land that A failed to establish claim to land by virtue of
imperceptible advance of water mark over period of years which became
property of Crown. Owner of land which becomes gradually and
imperceptibly covered by sea is entitled to regain possession of ut if it
subsequently becomes high and dry by gradual recession of water.
F. Rights Below the surface
1. Karuppannan v Balakrishnen
A bought hotel whose sewerage system, manholes and septic tanks
encroached on R’s land. R intended to build on land by owing to trespass
cannot. R get injunction and compel A remove encroachments.
G. Hak sampingan : s. 45 (hak untuk keluar, pindah dan angkat batu serta guna
hasil hutan selagi mana di dalam kawasan tanahnya)