MARCH 24 — MIC deputy president Datuk M Saravanan has refuted claims that the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple in Jalan Masjid India was constructed illegally.
He asserted that the allegations were baseless and misrepresented the temple’s long-standing presence in the area.
“This temple, which has stood for over 100 years, has always been here,” he said at a press conference held at the temple on Sunday (March 23).
But he conceded that the temple “was built on land owned by DBKL”.
The case of Muniandy A/L Subramaniam & Ors V Majlis Perbandaran Langkawi Bandaraya Pelancongan & Anor [2003] can be looked at as to the status of a temple on State land.
In that case, the plaintiffs, who were committee members of the Sri Muniswaran Temple (the Temple) at Jalan Kisap, Kuah, Langkawi, Kedah, relied strongly on the fact that the temple was in existence since 1928 – that is, well before the acquisition by the State Government of the land on which it was built and the subsequent reservation as a federal road.
The temple’s existence obviously was based on the goodwill and permission of the two previous landowners, the British plantation and subsequently Boon Siew Sdn Bhd.
Throughout its existence, the temple had never acquired any legal, registrable or proprietary interest on the land on which it was situated.
When the land in question was acquired by the State Government in 1985 from Boon Siew Sdn Bhd, its status reverted as “State land” within the meaning and effect of the National Land Code (NLC).
Furthermore, that land was gazetted as a federal road reserve by virtue of the State Government’s decision and the Minister’s order respectively.
The temple therefore had no legal interest or status on the land, and in fact and in law it is nothing more than a squatter allowed to be there by the second defendant until the land was actually needed by the Federal Government for its purposes.
Its continued existence there was actually an offence under Section 425(1) NLC. The temple’s long existence on the land per se could not defeat or override the State Government’s title over it.
Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple in Jalan Munshi Abdullah in Masjid India area. March 20 ,2025. — Picture by Choo Choy May .
The position of the temple in law was not unlike in the Federal Court case of Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors v The Government of the State of Perak & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 313 where Raja Azlan Shah CJ (as His Highness then was) 314 said:
“In our opinion there is one issue which lies at the heart of this case. It is whether the appellants have a cause of action against the respondents. The answer is obvious. It is clear beyond doubt that they cannot succeed because they are squatters. Squatters have no right either in law or in equity. (See McPhail v Persons Unknown CA). It does not lie in their mouths to assert that they used and occupied the land as squatters. (Emphasis added.)
“Their position under the NLC is not dissimilar. Section 48 NLC is against them. It says that ‘No title to State land shall be acquired by possession, unlawful occupation or occupation under any licence for any period whatsoever.’
“Section 78 NLC is also relevant. It says that alienation of State land shall only be effected in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3, of Part Five and Chapter 2. Section 341 NLC empowers the State Authority to dispossess any squatters at any time. So the limitation period does operate against the State.
“What equitable right or interest can be conjured up for the squatters who have illegally occupied State land? Squatters go into possession by, or as a result of, illegal occupation of State land. (Emphasis added)
“Illegal occupation of State land is an offence under Section 425 NLC. It is well established that a court of equity will never assist squatters to resist an order of possession illegally acquired; it will never intervene in aid of wrong-doers.”
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
