Don’t turn a legal matter into political ‘Musang King’ — Hafiz Hassan

APRIL 19 — I wrote at least three pieces on illegal occupation of land: here ; here ; and here.

In two of the pieces, I referred to the Federal Court decision of Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & Ors v The Government of the State of Perak & Ors [1982] which was delivered by the doyen of Malaysian judges, Raja Azlan Shah CJ (as His Royal Highness then was).

The principles so succinctly laid down by the then Chief Justice of Malaya may be summarized a follows:

Squatters have no right either in law or in equity.

Section 341 of the Code empowers the State Authority to dispossess any squatters at any time.

• Limitation period does not operate against the State.
• No 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.
• Illegal occupation of State land is an offence under s. 425 of the National Land Code.
• The court will never assist squatters to resist an order of possession illegally acquired; it will never intervene in aid of wrongdoers.
• The legal owner – that is, the State – is not obliged to go to the courts to obtain an order of possession.
• The legal owner is entitled, if he so wishes, to take the remedy into his own hands.
• The legal owner can go in himself and turn the squatters out without the aid of the courts of law.
• The legal owner can even use force, so long as he uses no more force than is reasonably necessary.
• The legal owner will not then be liable either criminally or civilly.
• The use of force is not to be encouraged because of the disturbance which might follow but the legality of it is beyond question.

The above principles were applied in their entirety by High Court judge Mohd Radzi Harun in Raub’s Musang King durian farmers land row which came before the learned judge as two judicial review applications at the substantive stage.

In their applications, the durian farmers (the Applicants) argued that they were not merely squatters or illegal occupants but farmers on the lands where they cultivated the Musang King durians (the Affected Lands).

The Applicants asserted that they were not squatters simpliciter. They had been on the Affected Lands over the years with consent or permission or knowledge or acquiesced by the State Authorities, expressly or impliedly.

In dismissing the applications, Justice Mohd Radzi said:

“The Applicants have no legal rights. The Applicants cannot succeed in their claims wherever because they are squatters simpliciter.

“I take it at face value that the majority of the Applicants have stayed and worked on the Affected Lands for over 60 years. They may have worked and stayed on the Affected Lands for 100 years. The length of time of their stay does not in any manner change the fact that they are squatters. Not only that they don’t have any rights, they have also committed criminal wrongdoings for so long as they remain on the land without permission of the rightful owner.

“This Court had been shown efforts by the Applicants to apply for land ownership and land lease but all ended up with either non-response or rejections from the State Authorities. This fact does not in any manner alter the status of the Applicants as squatters and illegal occupants of the Affected Lands.”

In his concluding remarks, the learned judge said:

“The Applicants’ applications are dismissed, and I deny all orders prayed by all of the Applicants in both actions, with costs. I wish to end with the quotation of Raja Azlan Shah’s decision in Sidek Hj Muhammad:

“It cannot have been intended by Parliament in enacting the National Land Code that every person who was in need of land should be able to sue the Government for it or to take the law into his own hands for the purpose. So, the Courts must, for the sake of law and order, take a firm stand. We can sympathise with the plight in which the [Applicants] find themselves. But we can go no further.

“So I order.” (See Chen Yoke Kong & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Raub & Ors and another suit [2024] MLJU 3371, decided on December 5, 2024)

With no apparent stay of the court’s order, the State authorities are entitled to take the remedy into their own hands, go into the Affected Lands themselves and turn the Musang King durians out.

The State authorities can even use force, so long as they use no more force than is reasonably necessary.

So, for the sake of law and order, don’t turn the matter or issue into a political “Musang King”.

*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.