# data[].attributes.body
Question 3
Issue : whether the state can impose conditions and restrictions
Section 120 - right of SA tu give conditions

Section 120(2) of the National Land Code clearly stated that the State Authority has the power to impose and conditions and restrictions at the time when the land is approved for alienation

The act of State Authority to impose restriction to Pak Samad's usage of land to only use six meters of the underground land is allowed by law in referring to section mention above

Section 125 - breach of conditions

Section 127 - subject to forfeiture

Case Collector of Land Revenue Johor Bharu v South Malaysia Industries Berhad-
The learned judge was of view that if the factory should have no store, it must be so expressed.
Applying to the Pak Samad, his issue of qualified title stated to only use 6 meters underground. It is a valid condition to restrict Pak Samad from using beyond 6 meters and thus show that SA has right to impose such conditions namely as expressed conditions

Conclusion:
Pak Samad's issue of qualified title is subject to conditions mad by SA

# data[].attributes.body
1. Please divide into groups to answer these questions
2. This platform is aimed for discussion, question and answers, students can give opinion as well.
3. Be creative, you can insert any information, case law, photos etc to support and illustrate your answers
All the best !

# data[].attributes.body
Section 79(2) of the National Land Code 1965 provides matters that the State Authority will determine upon approving alienation, which will include category of land use and condition.

Explain the differences between the following and give examples to   illustrate:

a.     Categories of land use and classification of land;

b.     Conditions and restrictions in interest.

(12 marks)

# data[].attributes.body
Chong has failed to pay the quit rent for his land for the past five years. He has recently received a notice of demand in Form 6A from the Land Administrator to pay the arrears of quit rent. Advise Chong on the steps that must be taken by the Land Administrator for the forfeiture proceedings under the National Land Code [Act 56].
(10 marks)

# data[].attributes.body
4)         (a) Differences of categories of the land use and classification of land.

There are a few differences between the category of the land use and the classification of the land. Firstly, the category of the land use to refer to the types of the usage of the land subjected to which relates to the nature of the use of a particular land as allowed under the code. Meanwhile, the classification of land essentially indicates the location of the land.

Secondly, there are also provisions to explain and differentiate the category of land use and the Classification of land essentially indicates the location of the land under National Land Code. For the categories of land, Section 52(1) of National Land Code stated that there are 3 categories of land use known respectively as agriculture, building and industry. Other than that, In Section 52(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the National Land Code, there two conditions that give effect towards the categories of land such as express condition and implied condition. For the express condition for the categories of the land use in term of agriculture, building and industry, it is provided under Section 120, Section 121 and Section 122 of the National Land Code. The express condition mans the condition that are endorsed on the IDT to the land and to the use of the land. Besides, for implied condition, it is vested in Section 114, Section 115, Section 116 and Section 117 of the National Land Code which means is not written in the document of titles as in the case of express condition and the condition implied on the land base on the category of the land.

The provision to explain the classification is based on Section 51 of the National Land Code 1965. Section 51(1) of National Land Code provides that the land is classified as land above the shoreline and foreshore and seabed. Furthermore, Section 51(2) of National Land Code stated that Land above the shoreline: Town Land, Village Land and Country Land. According to Section 77 of the National Land Code, in respect of the town or village or any lot of country land that exceeds 4 hectares in area was governed by the Register of Title State and Registry, however, if the land of the country which not exceed 4 hectares, it will administer by Land Administrator-District Land Office.

Hence, there are examples of the categories of the land use for Agriculture, which is for the purpose of planting the Palm Tree and other. For building, it can be for the single storey terrace house or town house for the issue document of title (IDT) whereas the condominium is example for strata title. The industry is mainly used for the purpose of factories. However, for the classification of land, land above the shoreline can be a town, village or country land. A town land is situated in a town declared under Section 11 of National Land Code or under the relevant provision of the land laws before it by virtue to Section 442 of the National Land Code.

b) Differences between conditions and restriction in interest

There are some differences of the conditions and restriction. Firstly, for the condition, the State authority may alienate land subject to express conditions. conditions that endorsed on the IDT to the land and relate to the use of land. The example of express condition in respect of land held under the category of agriculture. The land may only be used to plant rubber trees. Another example of express condition for land held under category of building. As an example, the building to be erected on this land is only for the purpose of a residence. If they breach the condition:  the land subject to forfeiture.

In the case of Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd, the respondents owned land in perpetuity and applied for the subdivision and conversion of land for the purpose of hotel service. Then, the approval has given subject to conditions that stated to lease for 99 years. The respondent rejected the conditions. The court held that, the authorities have no power to make the respondents surrender their freeholder land and receive in exchange a 99 years lease. It was stated that the committee should act fairly and not arbitrarily.

However, for restriction, unlike the express conditions, a restriction in interest does not deal with land use.  It is a limitation or restriction on the right on, of the registered proprietor in respect of applying for subdivision, partition or amalgamation of the land or the right to enter into dealing in respect of land. As an example of restriction in interest is, that certain land under the power of State Authority may not be transferred, charged, or leased without written consent of the State Authority. If breach the restriction in interest, the application is voidable/instrument unfit for registration.

In the case of Dr Ti Teow Seow & Ors v Pendaftar Geran-Geran Tanah Negeri Selangor, the land subject to restriction in interest is “cannot be transferred or leased for a period of 15 years’ washout the consent of the Ruler in council.”  The date of commencement of title on18th August 1964. The alienation was registered on 9th November 1967 and sold on 25 March 1980.  The memorandum of transfer and charge signed on 5th May 1980. The respondent rejected the registration on the ground of the restriction in interest is still subsisting. The applicant claimed restriction in interest has lapsed. The court held that, in the accordance of Section 78(3) of NLC, it is clear that the restriction in interest could not have commenced before the date of registration because the land remained State land and the restriction could not have meant to operate on the State Authority.

In conclusion, the state authority may imposed the conditions and restrictions in the interest towards the proprietor for the purpose of alienation the land.

# data[].attributes.body
Pak Samad was alienated with a piece of agricultural land in the Mukim of Gombak, Selangor. He was issued with a land title which states “Hakmilik Sementara (H.S.M) 1046, Mukim Gombak”. To his surprise, it was stated that he was permitted to use only six metres of the underground land. He was suspicious with the words “Hakmilik Sementara” and would like to know whether the land really belongs to him. He was also in doubt whether the State Authority is permitted to impose such restrictions upon landowners since he understood that whosoever owns the land, he owns it up to the limitless sky and down to the centre of the earth.Advise Pak Samad.(17 marks)

# data[].attributes.body
SKS Bhd. is a registered proprietor of an industrial land in Seri Kembangan, Selangor. The land was held under a 60 years lease (qualified title). There are two express conditions on the title. First, this land is to be used solely for erection of a factory and second, to be used for light industries. SKS Bhd. rented out the land to a urea company that used a portion of the land to store industrial chemicals and fertilisers. Later, the Land Administrator found out that and deemed such use of land as a breach of the conditions and issued a notice requiring SKS Bhd. to remedy the breach within one month. SKS Bhd. disagreed with the notice of remedy as there is no specific prohibition to use the land as a store. SKS Bhd. consults you for advice.(10 marks)

# data[].attributes.body
The issue is whether the land shall be forfeited when Zikri breached the implied condition that the land must be continuously cultivated after he left the land idle for more than five years under section 115(1) (e) and 127 of National Land Code.

Based on the Section 115(1)(e) of National Land Code provides that any alienated land to the category of agriculture land shall be continuously cultivated the said area as a condition to the proprietor.

Next, in Section 127 (1)(a) of National Land Code says that the land shall become liable to forfeiture to the State Authority if any condition is breached.

The proprietor of the land need to follow the implied condition that has been stated for the said land. As in the case of Collector of Land Revenue (JB) v South Malaysia Industries Bhd, the land was leased and alienated to the respondent company as an industrial land with condition that the land is to be used solely for erection of a factory and only for light industry. A portion of land was rented out and being used to store industrial chemicals and fertilizer. The Collector deemed that such use of land as a breach of condition. The respondent company brought an action against the Collector that the proceeding against it was illegal as there is no special condition prohibiting the use of land as a store. The Court of Appeal held that the express conditions imposed an imperative obligation on the respondent to use the factory premises for light industry. Therefore, storing of industrial chemicals and fertilizers was not a legitimate purpose of use permitted under the lease.

The effect of breached implied condition could be seen in the case of Che Minah bt Rameli v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Besut & Anor, the plaintiff was a registered proprietor of land held under the category 'agriculture' in Besut. Later, she was being notified that there was a breach of an implied condition under section 115 by the Besut land officer. This is because there were several building on the land including a sundry shop and surau. After the plaintiff made an application to change the category of land, her application was rejected. The defendant made an order that the breach of condition should be remedied within 15 days otherwise it would be forfeited.

By applying to the case based on the rule that have been specified above, the proprietor that have an alienated land under the category of agriculture land need to cultivate the area of land continuously as it is under the implied condition for the registered proprietor land. If the proprietor does the breach, the land may be forfeited by the State Authority.

Thus, the land may be forfeited by the State Authority under section 115(1) (e) and 127 of National Land Code due to Zikri's act of breaching the implied condition when he failed to continuously cultivate the land by leaving the land idle for more than five years.
Group Members:
1. Nurul Athirah bt Basri (1181845)
2. Nushaibah bt Badruddin (1181847)
3. Nur Hasya Aiman bt Amir (1181849)

# data[].attributes.body
Answer for Question 2 (edited)
The issue is whether storing the industrial chemical and fertilizer at SKS Bhd’s industrial land amount to breach the express conditions that stated in the title of the land and whether the breach of conditions by SKS Bhd. can lead to the forfeiture by the SA?

The relevant laws and case law is Section 76(a)of the National Land Code 1965 provides definition on disposal land by alienation where the alienation of State land shall consist of it’s  by the SA for a term not exceeding 99 years. The qualified title is one of the title of State land may be alienated according to Section 77(1)(b). Next, Section 76(e) states the alienation land was subject to conditions and restrictions in interest as may be imposed by the SA. Besides, Section 120(1) states the SA may impose express conditions and restriction in interest as it may think fit on the alienated lands.

Moreover, according to Section 125(1) mentions that continuous performance on non-compliance with the conditions may arises a breach of condition. Due to that, breach of conditions on any alienated land will make the land become liable to be forfeiture by the SA pursuant to Section 127(1)(a). Then, in Section 129(2) establish the procedure in forfeiture the alienated land due to breach of condition where the LA shall give a prior notice to the proprietor of the land and a copy of notice to the affected parties. According to Section 129(6), the SA  take  temporary possession of the land  with a view to remedy the breach at its own expenses and it will return to the proprietor with condition that are land to be maintained in a satisfactory condition or reimbursed the expenses incurred by the SA. The failure of proprietor to comply with the conditions, the land will be forfeit.

In the case of Collector of Land Revenue Johor Bahru v South Malaysia Industries Berhad, the Respondent granted 60 years of lease-industrial lot in Jalan Skudai (3 acres)-manufacture zinc, wire –netting, screws and nuts. Later, sublease part of the factory premises to a urea company for storing industrial chemicals and fertilizers. Then, the appellant commenced forfeiture proceedings for breach of conditions. The respondent initially admit the breach but later file a motion that the forfeiture proceedings null and void. The High Court’s decision in favor of the respondent and the appellant made appeal to the Federal Court.Court held that the appeal was allowed because the use of part of factory premise was not related to the industrial project and inconsistent with the express conditions in the said lease.

The first express condition for SKS and the  Collector case is same which is used solely for the erection of factory. But for the second condition it was different, where the SKS provides it was for the light industries while in Collector case was the restriction of user to light industries.

By applying the case to present issue, the SKS had same first express condition which is solely used for the erection of factory but it was differ in other condition where the SKS allow the light industry and the collector was the restriction of light industry. Hence, the premise of factory in storing industrial chemicals and fertilizers in SKS land was not part of the industrial project and it was inconsistent with the express conditions in the title land. The land administrator may perform the procedure of forfeiture of the land owned by SKS Bhd by issued a notice of remedy.

As a conclusion,  the act of SKS Bhd. rented out the land to a urea company that used a portion of the land to store industrial chemicals and fertilizers was amount to breach of express condition as SKS permitted for the use of light industries. Besides, the Land Administrator on behalf of the State Authority may perform the procedure of forfeiture of the land owned by SKS Bhd. by issued a notice of remedy.

Group members:
Sarah Salwa
Anis Azimah
Alifah Aimuni
Sti Hajar

# data[].attributes.body
Zikri was alienated a 20-acre plots of agricultural land in Taiping, Perak by the State Authority of Perak around five years ago. On his Issue Document of Title, there are two express conditions which states that the land can only be used to cultivate palm oil trees and that the cultivation must be done within two years of the land being alienated to Zikri. Despite it being more than five years since the land was alienated to Zikri, Zikri has left the land idle. Zikri wishes to know if the Land Administrator can take any action against him and the land for leaving the land idle all this while.(10 marks)