Neighborhood

VISION: In the best neighborhoods, the ones we mean to nurture, people know that "the heart is more important than the head" (from Streets of Hope). Residents recognize one another and count friends and family among their neighbors. They have a sense of concern and responsibility for the neighborhood and its people that is translated into action.

In the best neighborhoods:

Schools with small enrollments are one core of neighborhood life. The schools have strong parent and resident involvement. They work in partnership with the neighborhood to achieve high shared aspirations for youth, educate adults, and solve community problems. Residents are welcome to use the gym, recreational fields, auditorium, and meeting rooms.

The school site is the place where human service agencies collaborate to address the needs of families. Their staffs realize that people turn first to friends and neighbors when they have problems. These informal helping systems are sought out and strengthened.

Many housing options exist for people in different stages of life and income levels. Housing values are neither rising rapidly (gentrification) nor falling (decline). Quality is maintained through upgrading by residents made possible by private capital or well-crafted affordable housing subsidies.

Local businesses such as grocery and other retail stores, professional offices, bookstores, restaurants, and coffee shops are within a walk of home. Neighborhood life forms a network of relationships that helps people find jobs, start new businesses, and raise capital.

People ensure public safety by looking out for each other, and creating partnerships with the police and public agencies to solve crimes and reduce the causes of crime.

The neighborhood is well kept. Problems that arise (housing deterioration, trash, or abandoned autos) are dealt with quickly by responsive agencies. The neighborhood has a comforting sense of place expressed through its physical character.

The best neighborhoods are not utopias. They are places where people care about one another enough that there are few problems that cannot be solved by working together.

Akibat kelewatan bayaran pampasan

SEBUAH akhbar tempatan sedikit masa lalu melaporkan rasa terkilan sekumpulan penduduk kampung di Perak yang khabarnya mengalami kesulitan kewangan kerana pampasan yang dibayar oleh Pihak Berkuasa Negeri (PBN) kepada mereka dianggap sebagai amat tidak mencukupi.

Mengikut berita akhbar itu, kira-kira seratus pemilik tanah di Sayong dan beberapa kampung di sekitarnya mendakwa bahawa setelah tanah mereka diambil oleh PBN bagi maksud awam (di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960), pampasan yang dibayar kepada mereka amat tidak padan dan terlalu rendah nilainya, kerana pampasan yang dibayar itu adalah berasaskan nilai pasaran enam tahun yang lalu, dan bukan nilai pasaran sekarang.

Salah seorang pemilik tanah itu, Mohd. Efendi Ariffin, dipetik sebagai berkata bahawa tanahnya (beserta sebuah rumah dan kedai yang dibina di atasnya) telah diambil oleh PBN di bawah akta berkenaan dan satu anugerah pampasan telah dibuat pada 1995. Jumlah pampasan adalah berasaskan penilaian yang dibuat oleh Jabatan Penilaian negeri. Malangnya, kata Efendi lagi, walaupun anugerah diumumkan pada 1995, ia menerima bayaran pampasan itu hanya pada Disember 2000 yang lalu, iaitu setelah menunggu hampir 6 tahun.

Efendi mendakwa disebabkan kelambatan bayaran ini, jumlah yang diterima sudah tak lagi mencerminkan nilai pasaran tanah semasa.

Umumnya laporan akhbar mengenai kes-kes pengambilan tanah jarang sekali dapat menceritakan secara terperinci semua fakta yang berkaitan. Oleh itu, setelah membaca laporan akhbar ini, saya tidak terus membuat apa-apa kesimpulan mengenainya, kerana mungkin ada fakta lain yang belum dapat didedahkan. Dalam seminggu dua berikutnya, saya terus mencari dan meneliti setiap laporan mengenai kes-kes pengambilan tanah milik orang kampung, andainya ada disiarkan sebarang ulasan atau respons mengenai perkara itu. Manalah tahu, mungkin gambaran yang saya terima daripada laporan awal itu akan berubah setelah membaca jawapan atau penjelasan lanjut daripada PBN negeri atau Pejabat Tanah berkenaan? Malangya, walaupun beberapa minggu berlalu, apa yang saya tunggu tidak juga muncul. Jadi, anggapan saya apa yang didedahkan oleh Efendi itu adalah benar belaka.

* Kelambatan adalah kecacatan

Dalam sejarah Akta Pengambilan Tanah, kelewatan sering berlaku dalam tahun 70-an dan 80-an. Ada tiga jenis ``kelewatan'' yang sering berlaku - iaitu, kelewatan mengadakan siasatan (oleh Pejabat Tanah bagi maksud menentukan pampasan berasaskan nilai pasaran), kelewatan membuat anugerah (di akhir siasatan), dan kelewatan menyerahkan bayaran pampasan kepada pemilik tanah. Kerajaan pusat akhirnya terpaksa membuat pindaan undang-undang dalam usahanya membanteras penyalahgunaan kuasa dan ketidakpatuhan prosedur yang dilakukan oleh beberapa PBN dan Pejabat Tanah. Pindaan ini diluluskan oleh Parlimen menerusi Akta Pengambilan Tanah (Pindaan) 1984 (Akta A75).

Kelewatan dan ketidakpatuhan prosedur oleh Pejabat Tanah pernah dicela oleh Hakim Besar Ong dalam kes Lau Cher Hian v. Collector of Land Revenue Muar [1971] 1 MLJ 96, apabila beliau mengatakan bahawa ``Mereka yang memegang kuasa sepatutnya prihatin kepada prosedur yang digariskan dan sentiasa berlaku adil mematuhinya''. Kesimpulan yang boleh kita buat daripada kata-kata Hakim Besar itu ialah bahawa kelewatan yang tidak wajar (apa yang dipanggil inordinate delay) oleh Pejabat Tanah adalah satu contoh ketidakadilan prosedur.

* Tempoh yang ditetapkan

Jika akta dibaca secara teliti, kita boleh lihat bahawa setiap kes pengambilan tanah hendaklah disempurnakan paling lewat dalam masa 3 tahun. Ia bermula apabila satu notis awal pengambilan tanah yang diniatkan (Borang A) dikeluarkan di bawah seksyen 4 dan kemudian diisytiharkan dalam Warta. Dalam tempoh 12 bulan selepas itu, satu perisytiharan (Borang D) hendaklah dikeluarkan di bawah Seksyen 8. Jika ini tidak dilakukan, notis awal di bawah Seksyen 4 itu luput.

Selepas itu, satu siasatan hendaklah dijalankan dan di akhirnya, satu anugerah dibuat. Jika anugerah ini tidak dibuat dalam masa 2 tahun selepas tarikh perisytiharan di bawah Seksyen 8 itu, keseluruhan prosiding pengambilan tanah ini menjadi tidak sah dan batal. Jika pengambilan tanah diteruskan juga, keseluruhan tindakan itu boleh dicabar oleh pemilik tanah dan boleh dibatalkan oleh mahkamah.

Di bawah Seksyen 29(1) akta, pampasan hendaklah yang boleh'' (as soon as may be), kecuali dalam tiga keadaan tertentu. Dalam kes pengambilan tanah di Perak yang dilaporkan dalam akhbar itu, pada hemat saya 3 kecualian yang disebutkan dalam Seksyen 29(1) ini tidak berkaitan. Oleh itu, prinsip am (pembarayan pampasan seberapa cepat yang boleh) merupakan kehendak undang-undang yang mesti dipatuhi.

Dalam beberapa kes yang diputuskan di mahkamah, istilah ``seberapa cepat yang boleh'' telah ditafsirkan bermakna ``seberapa cepat yang mungkin, bukan seberapa lambat yang mungkin''. Sementara kita akui bahawa ``kecepatan'' itu adalah satu perkara yang relatif, memerlukan kita mengambil kira semua hal keadaan, yang sudah pasti ialah andainya pembayaran dibuat setelah 5 atau 6 tahun berlalu, ia bertentangan dengan kehendak Seksyen 29(1).

* Jaminan Perlembagaan

Hak setiap warganegara untuk terus memiliki dan menggunakan tanahnya dijamin di bawah Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Tanah itu tidak boleh diambil atau digunakan secara paksa oleh sesiapapun kecuali ada undang-undang yang membenarkan ia dilakukan, dan dengan syarat pemilik tanah dibayar pampasan yang memadai. Undang-undang yang membenarkan pengambilan tanah secara paksa memang wujud, iaitu Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, manakala apa yang dimaksudkan sebagai "pampasan yang mencukupi" itu adalah "nilai pasaran" tanah tersebut mengikut prinsip undang-undang yang dihuraikan secara terperinci dalam Jadual Satu Akta tersebut.

Kesimpulan daripada peruntukan undang-undang yang disebutkan di atas tadi ialah andainya disebabkan perkara yang berlaku atau hal keadaan yang berubah wang pampasan yang dibayar kepada pemilik tanah itu menjadi tidak mencukupi ketika pembayaran dibuat, pemilik tanah yang kehilangan tanahnya itu boleh mencabar pengambilan tanah itu berasaskan kecacatan atau ketidakpatuhan prosedur.

Saya ingin mengingatkan Pentadbir Tanah bahawa dalam perkembangan undang-undang pentadbiran semasa, mahkamah tempatan telah sering kali menggunakan kuasa semakan kehakimannya untuk mengetepikan dan membatalkan tindakan pentadbiran apabila tindakan itu didapati melanggar (gagal mematuhi) prosedur yang ditetapkan (apa yang dipanggil ultra vires prosedur). Mahkamah juga sering berbuat demikian apabila suatu tindakan pentadbiran itu dianggap sebagai suatu tindakan yang tidak berpatutan atau tidak munasabah (apa yang dipanggil ketidakmunasabahan Wednesbury).

IMF projects stronger 2010 recovery from global recession

WASHINGTON (AFP) - - The International Monetary Fund on Wednesday raised its outlook for the global economy in 2010, but said recovery from the worst recession since World War II would be sluggish.

The IMF boosted its 2010 global growth forecast to 2.5 percent, an improvement of 0.6 point from its April forecast.

The updated IMF forecast was marginally worse for 2009, showing a contraction of 1.4 percent across the global economy.

"While the world economy is still in recession, the recovery is coming. But it is likely to be a weak recovery," the IMF chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, said at a news conference.

In an update to its semiannual World Economic Outlook (WEO), the IMF said that "the global economy is beginning to pull out of a recession unprecedented in the post-World War II era, but stabilization is uneven and the recovery is expected to be sluggish."

"Financial conditions have improved more than expected, owing mainly to public intervention, and recent data suggest that the rate of decline in economic activity is moderating, although to varying degrees among regions," the IMF said.

Nevertheless, "financial systems remain impaired, support from public policies will gradually diminish, and households in countries that suffered asset price busts will rebuild savings," curbing consumption.

The downturn now was expected to hit advanced economies harder this year, with a combined contraction of 3.8 percent instead of the flat growth previously seen. Weak 0.6 percent growth in 2010 was unchanged.

"The advanced economies as a group are still projected not to show a sustained pickup in activity until the second half of 2010, consistent with the April 2009 WEO forecast," the IMF said.

Among the major economies, the IMF significantly marked up estimates for the United States and Japan.

For the US, the IMF pointed to improvements in the labor and housing markets, industrial production, and business and consumer confidence.

The IMF projected the world's biggest economy would shrink 2.6 percent in 2009, two-tenths of a point less than the prior estimate, and grow 0.8 percent in 2010, instead of the zero growth previously forecasted.

It hiked its outlook for Japan to 1.7 percent in 2010, up a hefty 1.2 points. Growth this year in the second-largest economy was estimated at a negative 6.0 percent, instead of the 6.2 percent contraction previously forecast.

The downturn would hammer the eurozone harder. The IMF projected the 16-nation bloc would contract 4.8 percent in 2009, 0.6 point worse than the April forecast, and shrink 0.3 percent in 2010.

Germany, Europe's largest economy, was set to shrink 6.2 percent in 2009 and 0.6 percent in 2010.

Outside the eurozone, Britain's prospects brightened. The IMF forecast growth of 0.2 percent in 2010, instead of a 0.4 percent contraction, after the economy shrinks 4.2 percent this year.

Growth in the emerging and developing economies would accelerate to 4.7 percent in 2010 from 1.5 percent this year.

China would lead with expansions of 7.5 percent in 2009 and 8.5 percent in 2010, while India would grow 5.4 percent and 6.5 percent. Both countries were marked up about a percentage point for each year.

Global trade volume would plunge by 12.2 percent this year, a steep 1.2 points more than forecast in the April WEO, before increasing 1.0 percent in 2010.

The IMF said in an update of its Global Financial Stability Report that financial conditions have improved "as unprecedented policy intervention has reduced the risk of systemic collapse and expectations of economic recovery have risen."

But it warned against over-exuberance in markets amid signs of recovery.

"Because much of the improvement in financial conditions is due to the robust rally in risk assets since March, there is a risk of a significant market setback if financial markets get too much ahead of the pace of economic recovery," it said.

Integration Project Outcome

Daripada 18 hingga 24 Mei 2009, Pelajar pengurusan harta tanah Universiti Malaya telah terbang ke Manila bagi menjalankan kajian pasaran serta mengemukakan beberapa cadangan pembangunan dibeberapa tapak yang berasingan. Sasaran projek integrasi ini adalah bagi menyediakan para pelajar dalam menjalankan kajian pasaran dan membuat cadangan pembangunan secara menyeluruh sebagai persediaan menghadapi alam pekerjaan.

Tapak-tapak telah dibahagikan kepada beberapa kumpulan pelajar bersama-sama dengan mentor daripada IPREA (Institue of Real Estate Philippine) supaya para pelajar dapat menjalankan satu kajian terhadap tapak yang telah disediakan. Lokasi tapak adalah berlainan antara satu sama lain, iaitu daripada kawasan pusat bandar di Makati City hinggalah ke kawasan pinggiran bandar di kawasan Tondo.

Tujuan pembahagian kawasan ini adalah bagi memastikan setiap kumpulan akan menghadapi situasi yang berlainan bagi setiap tapak dan hal ini akan menguji tahap kebolehan para pelajar dalam menyelesaikan masalah yang dihadapi diatas tapak masing-masing. Halangan utama adalah daripada perbezaan system pentadbiran tanah yang amat berbeza walaupun Filipina turut menggunakan sistem torren dalam pentadbiran tanah mereka, antara yang paling berbeza adalah daripada segi pegangan tanah, dimana mereka tiada pegangan pajakan, dan pentadbiran tanah adalah dibawah bidangkuasa judisiari. Selain itu perbezaan dalam sistem perancangan juga membuka minda para pelajar mencari jalan bagi mengatasinya.

Semalam (17/18 Julai 2009) para pelajar telah menamatkan projek mereka dan telah membentangkan hasil kajian mereka di hadapan para pensyarah. Menakjubkan serta mengujakan para peserta dengan kaedah penyampaian yang meyakinkan serta input-input baru yang disampaikan adalah mantap dan meyakinkan. Antara yang menarik perhatian adalah cadangan pembinaan hypermarket murah berkonsepkan Mydin di Malaysia, pembinan Gudang sejuk beku di daerah Tondo, pembinaan bangunan pejabat dan servis apartment dan lain-lain lagi. Terdapat 10 cadangan telah dikemukakan, semuanya adalah dianggap sebagai keguanaan terbaik dan tertinggi bagi tapak tersebut berdasarkan halangan-halangan samada dari segi perundangan, fizikal tapak dan beberapa faktor lain yang turut mempengaruhi.

Sebagai seorang mahasiswa masa kini terutama yang mengikuti bidang harta tanah, kita sememangnya perlukan projek-projek sebegini bagi membuka minda mahasiswa supaya berada di tahap global supaya idea-idea baru dapat diterapkan didalam pembangunan di negara kita dimasa hadapan. Bersama ini juga saya akan memuat masuk beberapa fail kejian kewangan"cashflow analysis" dan slide presentation untuk dikangsi bersama.



Slide Show

Cashflow

IPREA and UPD welcome UM Malaysian students

Tuesday, 12 May 2009

On May 18 to 24, 2009, a group of 57 Malaysian students with 4 facilitator-professors of the University of Malaya (Department of Estate Management of the Faculty of Built Environment) will visit Manila - Philippines. The academic trip to the Philippines is part of their course curriculum known as “Integration Project”. They will be hosted cooperatively by the Institute of Philippine Real Estate Appraisers (IPREA) and the Department of Geodetic Engineering, College of Engineering of the University of the Philippines Diliman (UPD).



The “Integrated Project” is a special project for Estate Management students, that is Problem Based Learning (PBL) based. Students are divided into several groups (this year -10 groups with 5 members each), given lectures and taken to different site visits each year. A facilitator is assigned to three groups of students. The learning outcome of the project would encompass students’ acquisition of practical knowledge in their preparation to join the real estate practice. Students are expected to fully apply all the subjects that they have learned, complemented with their own ideas and some choice inputs from facilitators.
Among the government /corporate offices that will be visited for research and information are the following: National Housing Authority (NHA); Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB); Land Registration Authority (LRA); Home Mutual Development Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund); Housing Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC); National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).

Ten valuation sites within Metropolitan Manila have been identified. The visits to the various property sites will be coordinated by IPREA valuers.

UPD and IPREA welcome the students of The University of Malaya (UM) with a program ceremony at the UP Engineering Theater, College of Engineering, UP Campus Diliman on May 19, 2009 at 08:30 Hrs.

Contoh Report Valuation dan working

kepada semua yg perlukan contoh report valuation untuk padang golf atau mining, disini saya ada sertakan contoh report beserta contoh calculation (dalam pdf) untuk rujukan rakan-rakan, adik-adik junior dan sesiapa sahaja yg perlukan. File di hantar dalam bentuk .RAR, jadi korang perlu ada winrar untuk extract file tersebut. sekian

Link:
http://www.savefile.com/files/2083091

sepang dredging
http://rapidshare.com/files/224813869/VALUATION_SEPANG_DREDGING.pdf.html

tutorial timber plantation en anuar alias (click here)


petrol station 2008 soalan no 3 (click here)

Timber Concession Final 2008 (click here)

Pembangunan Mapan

Definisi:

Pembangunan Mapan adalah suatu pembangunan yang dijalankan bagi memenuhi keperluan pada masa kini tanpa mengorbankan keperluan pada masa akan datang.

Pembangunan bandar yang mampan harus dijalankan dengan mengambil kira keupayaan menampungnya; pengambilan sumber, pengagihan bahan buangan serta kadar pencemaran yang dicetuskan ke atas bandar dan kawasan sekelilingnya.(White & Whitney, 1992)

Pembangunan bandar yang mampan perlulah mengambil kira keadilan sosial, keperluan manusia asas, kesihatan awam, kesedaran persekitaran dari segi ruang dan masa. Salah satu cara untuk mencapai pembangunan mampan tersebut adalah melalui kesihatan ekonomi bandar. Justeru itu, aktiviti ekonomi, peluang pekerjaan dan kemiskinan perlu diambil perhatian dan daripadanya peranan aktiviti informal serta perdagangan skala kecil(petty commodity sector) menjadi penting.(David Drakakis-Smith, 1995)

Matlamat pembangunan mapan

5 Matlamat Pembangunan Mapan:

1. Pemuliharaan Sumber

Memastikan penerusan penawaran sumber semulajadi pada masa sekarang dan akan datang melalui penggunaan tanah yang efektif, pengurangan sumber yang tidak boleh diperbaharui, pemuliharaan kepelbagaian sumber semulajadi.

Pemuliharaan merangkumi penggantian sumber, perubahan dalam cara penggunaan dan memberi perhatian kepada faktor ‘intangible’ seperti nilai keselesaan dan nilai warisan.

2. Pembangunan Fizikal

Memastikan pembangunan alam bina akan berharmoni dengan alam semulajadi di mana hubungan mereka adalah seimbang dan saling memanfaatkan. Membantu menyedarkan komuniti tentang peluang yang terdapat di kawasan tersebut serta meminimumkan pembaziran sumber dan keburukan yang akan dibawa kepada komuniti apabila sesetengah kawasan perniagaan mengalami tekanan pembangunan yang melampau sedangkan sesetengah kawasan mengalami kemerosotan perniagaan seperti penutupan kedai dan kehilangan pekerjaan.

3. Kesaksamaan Sosial

Mengelakkan pembangunan yang akan menambahkan jurang antara golongan kaya dan miskin serta menggalakkan pembangunan yang dapat mengurangkan ketidaksamaan sosial.

mengurangkan pembaziran tenaga manusia. Kesaksamaan sosial perlu dipelihara dari segi peluang ekonomi di sesuatu kawasan.

4. Kualiti Alam Sekitar

Mengelakkan pencemaran alam, melindungi kapasiti ekosistem dan mengelakkan pembangunan yang akan mengancam kesihatan manusia atau menjejaskan kualiti kehidupan.

mengurangkan atau mengubah proses pengeluaran atau perniagaan yang akan menjejaskan kualiti hidup manusia. Cara pembuangan dan pelupusan sampah harus dititikberatkan.

5. Penyertaan Politik

Menggalakkan penyertaan komuniti dalam membuat keputusan.

KAEDAH KEUNTUNGAN STESEN MINYAK

PULANGAN/INCOME

• JUALAN MINYAK/PETROL SALES
  
  • JENIS MINYAK X PURATA JUALAN SETAHUNX KEUNTUNGAN SELITER
    

  CONTOH:
  

  RON 92 X 120,000L setahun X RM 0.60 = RM 72,000 setahun
  

  RON 97 X 600,000L setahun X RM 0.50 = RM 300,000 setahun
  

  DIESEL X 110,000L setahun X RM 0.40 = RM 44,000 setahun
  

  JUMLAH PELANGAN DARI JUALAN PETROL        RM 416,000 setahun
  

 

• PULANGAN JUALAN RUNCIT& LUBRICANT
  
  • PULANGAN DASRI JUALAN MINYAK PELINCIR
    
  • PULANGAN DARI JUALAN RUNCIT
    

    Nota: Sila rujuk kepada data jualan daripada akaun dan data jualan dari pihak pengusaha
    

    
     

    JUMLAH PULANGAN DARI JUALAN RUNCIT DAN PELINCIR RM XX,XXX
    

    
     

• PULANGAN DARI SEWAAN RUANG
  
  • SEWAAN RUANG
    

    CONTOH
    

    
     

    SEWAAN YANG DITERIMA DARI PENGUSAHA CAFE
    

    SEWAAN YANG DITERIMA DARI CUCIAN KERETA
    

    SEWAAN OLEH MAKANAN SEGERA
    

    Nota: Sila rujuk kepada apa-apa perusahaan ataupun sewaan yang terdapat di atas tapak yang menyewa kepada tapak stesen minyak tersebut.
    

    
     

    JUMLAH PULANGAN DARI SEWAAN RUANG/TAPAK    RM XX,XXX
    

    
     

• JUMLAH PULANGAN KASAR (GROSS)(A+B+C)     RM XXX,XXX
  

  
   

  (TOLAK -)
  

  
   

• KOS OPERASI
  
  • GAJI/EPF/SOCSO        RM XX,XXX
    
  • UTILITI                RM XX,XXX
    
  • Nota: apa-apa jua perkara yang membolehkan syarikat beroperasi
    

    
     

    JUMLAH KOS OPERASI        RM XX,XXX
    

    
     

• KOS PENGURUSAN
  
  • LESEN                RM XX,XXX
    
  • BAYARAN SEKRETERIAT        RM XX,XXX
    
  • AUDIT FEE            RM XX,XXX
    
  • BAYARAN AM            RM XX,XXX
    
  • TANGGUNGAN HUTANG    RM XX,XXX
    
  • Nota: apa-apa jua perkara yang melibatkan pengurusan operasi syarikat
    

    
     

    JUMLAH KOS PENGURUSAN    RM XX,XXX
    

    
     

• KOS TAHUNAN
  
  • PEMBAIKAN DAN PENJAGAAN    RM XX,XXX
    
  • INSURAN KEBAKARAN        RM XX,XXX
    
  • CUKAI TAKSIRAN        RM XX,XXX
    
  • CUKAI TANAH            RM XX,XXX
    

    JUMLAH KOS TAHUNAN    RM XX,XXX
    

    
     

• JUMLAH PULANGAN BERSIH(D-E-F-G)        RM XX,XXX
  

  (BAKI BOLEH BAHAGI)
  

  
   

  (TOLAK -)
  

  
   

• PEMBAHAGIAN
  
  • BAHAGIAN PENGUSAHA @ % drpd H    RM XX,XXX
    
  • SIMPANAN MENANGGUNG RISIKO    RM XX,XXX
    
  • BAYARAN ROYALTI            RM XX,XXX
    
  • Nota: apa-apa jua kos yang perlu di keluarkan oleh pengusaha tetapi tidak dikategorikan di dalam kumpulan pengurusan dan operasi
    

    
     

    JUMLAH PEMBAHAGIAN         RM XX,XXX
    

    
     

• KEUNTUNGAN BERSIH(H-I)            RM XX,XXX
  

  
   

• ANGKA BELIAN TAHUNAN (YP)
  
  • PENGUSAHA & PENYEWA & PEMAJAK     = YP DUAL RATE
    
  • PENGUSAHA & PEMILIK        = YP SINGLE RATE(KECUALI BAGI KES TANAH PAJAKAN)
    

    
     

• JUMLAH NILAI MODAL(J X K)            RM XX,XXX
  

 

 

 

Honan Plantations Sdn Bhd- vs -Johore

Judgment

Gopal Sri Ram JCA

(delivered an oral judgment of the court)

1. The appellant before us (plaintiff in the court below) was the registered proprietor of approximately 996 hectares of land situated in the State of Johor. It filed proceedings in the High Court of Johor challenging the decision by the first defendant (the State Government of Johor) to acquire the land, which I will, for convenience, refer to as 'the subject property'. This forms the subject matter of Civil Appeal No J–01–30–96 ('the first appeal'). There is another appeal before us arising out of the same subject matter. It is Civil Appeal No J–02–68–96 ('the second appeal'). I will say something more of the second appeal in a moment.
   
2. Returning to the facts of the case, the plaintiff in its statement of claim, apart from joining the Government of Johor and the Land Administrator, cited Prolink Sdn Bhd as the third defendant. The gist of the appellant's complaint is that the subject property was acquired contrary to law in the sense that the acquisition was ultra vires or vitiated on 'Anisminic' grounds (the reference here being to the decision of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147) or for 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223). After service of the writ and statement of claim on all defendants, applications were taken out by the first and second respondents in the first appeal as well as Prolink (respondent in the second appeal) to strike out the action on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
   
3. The learned judge who heard both sets of applications granted them and struck out the plaintiff's statement of claim (see [1998] 5 MLJ 129). The appellant has now filed two appeals and as I have said, in the first appeal, it is the Johor Government and Land Administrator who are the respondents.
   
4. I now turn to the second appeal merely to state that the respondent is Prolink and that the challenge by the appellant is limited to the order made in the separate summons in that case.
   
5. For convenience, we heard both the appeals together and I propose to give reasons for my decision in both appeals at the same time.
   
6. The application to strike out in the first appeal was based on O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court 1980. In the second appeal, affidavits were also filed but as events transpired they were not used. Counsel before us have therefore proceeded on the ground that both appeals are grounded and are to be treated as having been made under O 18 r 19(1)(a).
   
7. The principles governing an application made under O 18 r 19(1)(a) are well settled and have been stated by our courts on many occasions. For my part I can do no better than to quote from the judgment of Raja Azlan Shah J (as he then was) in Mooney v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co [1967] 1 MLJ 87 at p 88:
   

It is firmly established that the power exercised under r 4 [the precursor to O 18 r 19] 'is only appropriate in cases which are plain and obvious so that a judge can say at once that a statement of claim as it stands is insufficient, even if proved, to entitle the plaintiff to the relief of which he asks for': see the judgment of Lindley MR in Hubbuck & Sons v Wilkinsons Heywood & Clark Ltd [1899] 1 QB 86 at p 91. Where the situation arises, the pleadings and particulars alone shall be considered and all the allegations in it shall be presumed to be true, and it is only on that assumption that any suitable case can be made for this application: see Peck v Russell (1923) 4 FMSLR 32 at p 34. The court cannot and indeed is not empowered to look behind the pleadings and particulars if it discloses a reasonable cause of action. So long as the statement of claim discloses some ground of action, the mere fact that the plaintiff is not likely to succeed on it at the trial is no ground for it to be struck out: see Boaler v Holder (1886) 54 LT 298. A recent exposition of the law is afforded by the judgment of Danckwerts LJ in Wenlock v Moloney [1965] 1 WLR 1238 at p 1243: Under the rule (i.e. 25 r 4) it had to appear on the facts of the plaintiff's pleadings that the action could not succeed or was objectionable for some other reason. No evidence could be filed .... But, as the procedure was of a summary nature the party was not to be deprived of his rights to have his case tried by a proper trial unless the matter was clear. After stating that the former rules are now incorporated in the revised Rules of the Supreme Court, O 18 r 19, he continues: But this summary jurisdiction of the court was never intended to be exercised by a minute and protracted examination of the documents and facts of the case in order to see whether the plaintiff really has a cause of action. To do that is to usurp the position of the trial judge.

1. In essence, therefore, the principle is that pleadings ought not to be struck out save in plain and obvious cases.
   
2. The learned judge in the present case stated the principles applicable to an O 18 r 19 application with accuracy. The only complaint before us by the appellant is that he misapplied those principles to the facts of the instant appeal.
   
3. At the heart of the matter lies the question whether an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('the Act') is capable of challenge and if so, on what grounds. That question has already received judicial treatment in cases decided by the highest courts of this country. Before discussing the line of authority cited to us by Mr. Tommy Thomas of counsel for the appellant, I think I should sum up the effect of those cases. It is this. An acquisition made under the provision of the Act cannot be challenged unless a plaintiff establishes that the acquiring authority had misconstrued its powers or had acted in bad faith or with gross unreasonableness. The limit of the challenge is occasioned by the wording of s 8(3) of the Act, which reads:
   

A declaration in Form D shall be conclusive evidence that all scheduled land referred to therein is needed for the purpose specified therein.

1. In Syed Omar Abdul Rahman Taha Alsagoff v The Government of the State of Johor [1979] 1 MLJ 49 (PC), the Privy Council, whose advice on that occasion was delivered by Viscount Dilhorne, put the matter in this way (at p 50):
   

Section 8(3), as has been said, provides that the declaration shall be conclusive evidence that all scheduled land is needed for the purpose specified therein. While it may be possible to treat a declaration made pursuant to this subsection as a nullity if it be shown that the acquiring authority has misconstrued its statutory powers (see Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147) or that the purpose stated in the declaration does not come within s 3, in the absence of bad faith, which in the instant case is negatived by concurrent findings of facts in the court below, this subsection renders it not possible to challenge its validity by asserting that some of the land to which it relates is not needed for the purposes stated or that the land is in fact wanted for purposes other than those specified. Consequently the fact that the lands listed in the Schedule amounted to some 5,700 acres when the total area of the State Development Officer's original requirements was 2,000 acres does not help the appellants, nor can it really be contended that the purposes stated in the declaration do not come within s 3.

1. The next authority is S Kulasingam v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory [1982] 1 MLJ 204. There, Hashim Yeop A Sani J (as he then was) when dismissing the challenge to acquisition, explained the effect of the Alsagoff case as follows (at p 208):
   

The challenge of the plaintiff on this point, however, can be fully answered by the judgment of the Privy Council in Syed Omar Abdul Rahman Taha Alsagoff v The Government of the State of Johor [1979] 1 MLJ 49 where the Privy Council in dismissing the appeal held that s 8(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 provides that the declaration issued under the section shall be conclusive evidence that all the scheduled land is needed for the purpose specified therein. The judgment of Viscount Dilhorne would seem to reaffirm Wijeyesekera v Festing AIR 1919 PC 155 and SMT Somavanti v State of Punjab [1963] 2 SCR 774, on the matter of the government declaration of public purpose but the judgment also goes one step further in providing for the circumstances when the courts can treat such declaration as a nullity.

1. Abdoolcader J (as he then was) in delivering the judgment of the Federal Court in the same case said of the effect of s 8(3) (at p 211):
   

The conclusive evidence clause in s 8(3) which we have mentioned in effect provides that the decision of the state authority that the land is needed for the purpose specified under s 8(1) is final and conclusive and cannot be questioned (Wijeyesekera v Festing AIR 1919 PC 155). The Privy Council however held in Syed Omar Abdul Rahman Taha Alsagoff v The Government of the State of Johor [1979] 1 MLJ 49 (at p 50) that it may be possible to treat a declaration under s 8 as a nullity if it be shown that the acquiring authority has misconstrued its statutory powers or that that purpose stated therein does not come within s 3 or if bad faith can be established. The purpose of the acquisition can therefore be questioned but only to this extent.

1. In Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang v Ong Gaik Kee [1983] 2 MLJ 35, Salleh Abas CJ (Malaya) (as he then was) said in the context of land acquisition cases (at p 37):
   

Every exercise of statutory power must not only be in conformity with the express words of the statute but above all must also comply with certain implied legal requirements. The court has always viewed its exercise as an abuse and therefore treats it as illegal where the exercise is done for an inadmissible purpose or on irrelevant grounds or without regard to relevant considerations or with gross unreasonableness (de Smith's (4th Ed) at p 323; and Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223).

1. Finally in Yeap Seok Pen v Government of the State of Kelantan [1986] 1 MLJ 449, Lord Griffith in two passages, in the advice of the Privy Council, set out the principles applicable to a challenge of land acquisition in the face of s 8(3) of the Act. This is how he put it at p 451:
   

In presenting her appeal to this Board, the appellant has confined herself to the second of her original grounds, namely, that the compulsory acquisition of her land was made in bad faith in that her land was selected for compulsory acquisition because she is not of Malay origin, and that the government used their compulsory purchase powers as a device to prevent her, as a Chinese Malaysian, from becoming the owner of land. If the appellant could prove that this was the disgraceful purpose for which the compulsory purchase power was used, it would be a clear case of abuse of power entitling her to have the compulsory purchase order quashed. There is no dispute about this principle of law and it was recognized by both the judge and the Federal Court. But as the trial judge rightly observed, bad faith of this order is an exceedingly serious allegation to make and she, who makes it, has a heavy burden to discharge the onus of proving it.

1. And at p 453 he said:
   

.... He who asserts bad faith has the burden of proving it, mere suspicion is not enough. In deciding whether the burden is discharged, the court will consider all the evidence before it, including any explanation given by the Minister and any inference to be drawn from the failure to give an explanation. Their Lordships can see no reason to suppose that this was not the approach adopted in the Federal Court. Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that the courts below did consider that the material placed before them by the appellant raised the suspicion of bad faith. They rehearsed the appellant's argument in the judgments but did not say that they were suspicious of the respondent's motives. Thirdly, unlike the case of R v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex p Soblen [1963] 2 QB 243 in which discovery had been refused, no attempt was made by the appellant, either through a request for discovery or to cross-examine upon the respondent's affidavits, to probe into the Foundation's reasons for requesting the compulsory acquisition of her property. This was an allegation of bad faith founded on scanty evidence. Their Lordships are not surprised that that evidence was held to be insufficient to discharge the burden of proof upon the appellant and can find no fault in the judgment of the Federal Court.

1. As I have already said, the statement of claim in the present case includes a challenge which falls plumb within the grounds of challenge formulated in the cases I have discussed a moment ago. Can it be then said that the statement of claim in the instant case discloses no reasonable cause of action whatsoever? After anxious consideration I am inclined to answer in the negative. In my judgment, the facts pleaded in the statement of claim abundantly disclose a reasonable cause of action. In coming to this conclusion I have not overlooked the powerful submissions of Mr. Zainal, State Legal Adviser and Nr. Zaki of counsel for Prolink, that the Privy Council had in the Alsagoff case treated as entirely proper the action of the state government in that case as reflected in the following passage in the judgment of Viscount Dilhorne at p 50 of the report:
   

Paragraph 1 of that declaration is, as Syed Othman J held, 'the material or substantive part of the declaration', a conclusion with which the Federal Court agreed and with which their Lordship agree. The schedule attached to the declaration lists the lands to be acquired and the paragraph states the purposes of the acquisition. The plan referred to in para 2 has to be a plan of the lands and areas so specified. The Act imposes no obligation on the acquiring authority to produce a plan for inspection which shows how the land to be acquired is to be zoned. Such evidence as there was to the effect that zoning of the area which effected the appellants' lands for special purposes in this draft lay-out plan prepared by the Planning Officer was never accepted and approved by the state authority; but even if it had been, that would not, in their Lordships' view, fell outside s 3 of para 1 of the declaration for where, as in the instant case, a new town is to be created, the provision of space for creation may be regarded as an incidental to zoning for residential use. The Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1948, s 30, provides that: Where a written law confers on any person to do .... any act or thing, all such powers shall be understood to be also conferred as are reasonably necessary to enable the person to do .... the act or thing. In the event, however, the appellants' lands have actually been used as part of a shipyard. [emphasis added]

1. With respect, I am unable to agree with the arguments of the learned State Legal Adviser and Mr. Zaki that the above passages establish any principle of general application. In my judgment, the answer to the submissions made by counsel for both the respondents was provided during argument this morning by my learned brother Denis JF Ong JCA who described the passage relied upon as merely a holding on the facts of that case and not a principle of law. I am of like mind.
   
2. Having considered the matter carefully, I am compelled to arrive at the conclusion that the learned judge had misdirected himself in holding that the statement of claim was demurrable and ought to be struck out. It would appear from his judgment that his view is that land once acquired can never be recovered from the acquiring authority and that the act of acquiring can never be challenged. This comes across in the following passage in his judgment ([1998] 5 MLJ 129 at p 154):
   

But in the face of statutory prohibitions expressly or necessarily implied in the Act as discussed above, and after having cautioned myself, I am of the view that the plaintiff's action against the first and second defendant is 'obviously unsustainable'. The pleading do not at all disclose some cause of action or even raise any question fit to be decided. Furthermore, s 8(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1950 provides that if any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise that in due course of law he may, by suit, recover possession thereof and s 8(3) provides that no suit under this section shall be brought against any government in Malaysia. The plaintiff has, by virtue of the acquisition by the state authority, been dispossessed of its land in due course of law and even if assuming that he proves that there was malice, I cannot see how he can bring a suit against the State Government of Johor in the face of such a provision. [emphasis added]

1. I have consciously refrained from regurgitating the statement of claim and the particulars pleaded under its several paragraphs. I have not undertaken that task because the learned judge in his judgment has sufficiently set out the allegations in the statement of claim and admirably summarized them.
   
2. For the reasons I have given, I am of the view that this appeal should be allowed. The orders I propose to make are as follows:
   
   1. Civil Appeals Nos J–01–30–96 and J–02–6 –96 are hereby allowed;
      
   2. The order of the judge dated 19 January 1996 is set aside;
      
   3. The writ and statement of claim shall be restored to file;
      
   4. The defendants in this appeal are to file their defences within six weeks from the date of this order; and
      
   5. There shall be no order as to costs against the respondents in the first appeal, both here and in the court below. The respondent in the second appeal shall pay all the costs of the appeal and in the court below. These costs shall be taxed but there shall be a stay upon the allocatur until further order.
      

   Siti Norma Yaakob JCA
   

3. I concur.
   

   Denis JF Ong JCA
   

4. I concur.
   

Cases

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223

Mooney v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co [1967] 1 MLJ 87

Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang v Ong Gaik Kee [1983] 2 MLJ 35

S Kulasingam v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory [1982] 1 MLJ 204

Syed Omar Abdul Rahman Taha Alsagoff v The Government of the State of Johor [1979] 1 MLJ 49

Yeap Seok Pen v Government of the State of Kelantan [1986] 1 MLJ 449

Legislations

Land Acquisition Act 1960: s.8(3)

Rules of the High Court 1980: Ord.18 r 19(1)(a)

Representations

Tommy Thomas (CW Lim with him) (Skrine & Co) for the appellant in both appeals.

Zainal Adzam Abd Ghani (Johor State Legal Adviser) (SE Teo, Senior Federal Counsel with him) for the respondents in the first appeal.

Zaki Tun Azmi (Rashid & Lee) for the respondent in the second appeal.

Notes:-

This decision is also being reported at [1998] 2 MLJ 498.