ADVERSE POSSESSION by

Dr. Sharifah Zubaidah Aljunid, AIKOL, IIUM (2006) Meaning of ‘Adverse Possession’

The law of adverse possession upholds the estates in land of persons who have no formal ownership. Adverse possession is “possession as of wrong” but long possession matures the wrong into a right. The NLC does not recognise Adverse Possession: Section 48: “No title to State land shall be acquired by possession, unlawful occupation or occupation

under any license for any period whatsoever.”

Effect? Unlawful occupation of State land, even after a long duration, will not enable the occupier to obtain title to the land. Unlawful Occupation of State Land is an Offence (See section 425 NLC) Sidek bn Hj Muhammad & Ors v The Government of the State of Perak & Ors. [1982] 1 MLJ 313 Facts:

1 Appellants came to Perak and opened up a jungle area now known as Seberang Perak in Kg. Gajah.

2 Other settlers came to the area and the state govt. resettled some settlers to the land where the appellants were already in occupation.

3 When the appellants were given notices to stop work and vacate the area, they filed a writ seeking a declaration that they were entitled in law and equity to be in possession of the land they had pioneered & occupied.

Grounds in Support: 1) The D.O. had promised each settler 3 acres of padi land subject to successful interviews. 2) Utusan Malaysia published an article stating that the State Director of Lands and Mines

said that each pioneer settler would be given 5 acres of padi land. The respondents applied to strike out the appellants’ action on the grounds that they had no cause of action as they were squatters. Upheld by the High Court. Federal Court held: 1) The appellants had no cause of action as they were squatters who had no right either in

law or equity. 2) Section 48 of the Code is against them. 3) The only way to obtain State land is by way of the NLC.

Govt. of Negri Sembilan v Yap Chong Lan & Ors. [1984] 2 MLJ 123 Held: The Collector has no authority to commit the State Authority as to alienation of land. Even if public facilities had been supplied to unlawful occupants of State land, this cannot be used to bind the State Authority to alienate land to the occupants. Squatters cannot raise the doctrine of equittable estoppel against the State Authority. Bohari bn Taib & Ors. v PTG Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343 Supreme Court held: For the purpose of the summary procedure under Order 89 Rules of the High Court, a distinction should be made between squatters simpliciter who have no rights whatsoever and occupiers with licence or consent. Homework:

Distinguish between the decision in Sidek’s case and the decision in Bohari’s case.