PETALING JAYA: Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia senior law lecturer Dr Nur Yuhanis Ismon said once a Section 8 declaration is issued under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA), the fate of a redevelopment project is sealed and residents cannot stop it, although they may challenge compensation or procedure in court.
She said once land is declared for a “public purpose”, the acquisition process applies to all owners within the boundary, regardless of individual objections.
“Residents still have legal avenues, particularly in disputing compensation amounts under sections 37 and 38 of the Act by filing objections in Form N or seeking a judicial review if they believe the acquisition was carried out for an improper purpose or without due process.
“In practice, a minority of landowners cannot halt the project simply by refusing compensation. If the amount is not accepted, it will be deposited into court and the acquisition proceeds.”
She added that redevelopment should not be viewed as a “land grab” if all statutory requirements are met.
She also said the LAA grants the government broad powers to acquire land for public purposes or other categories under the law.
“If all statutory requirements are complied with, compensation is fair and the public purpose is genuine, such as urban renewal, infrastructure development or heritage-sensitive projects, then the acquisition is lawful redevelopment, not a land grab.”
Nur Yuhanis said the Act contains safeguards to ensure residents are not coerced and receive fair restitution.
“Compensation must reflect fair market value, with possible additions for losses. If rejected, the sum is deposited in court. Residents may also seek judicial review if the acquisition is not for a genuine public purpose or if procedures are flawed, while sections 37 and 38 of the Act allow challenges to compensation adequacy in the High Court.”
She added that the court process under the LAA ensures judicial oversight, particularly in compensation disputes.
“When objections are filed under sections 37 and 38, cases are brought to the High Court, where parties could present valuers, evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The process is transparent in principle, since hearings are open to the public and judgments are published, allowing scrutiny of how compensation is assessed.”
However, she acknowledged the difficulty of balancing individual rights with the collective interest, as courts generally uphold the government’s definition of “public purpose” and rarely question whether redevelopment genuinely serves the community or mainly benefits private developers.
“While a judicial review is available, Malaysian courts have historically been cautious in interfering with executive decisions on land acquisitions.”
She also said under the law, only those with recognised legal interest in the land such as registered owners, tenants or beneficiaries, have the right to challenge or object to an acquisition. NGOs or outsiders without such standing cannot do so legally, although they may exert pressure through political or public channels.