Collector of Land Revenue, FT v

Garden City Development Bhd.

[1979] 1 MLJ 223 FC; [1982] 2
MLJ 98 PC
Group 2B
Phuah Wen Jian

1132700305

Facts
Garden City Development Bhd. (The Company) is the landowner of a piece of
land.
It applied for sub-division and conversion for the land. Before approval is
obtained, it obtained the consent from DBKL for the construction of a substantial
commercial building (Wisma Central).
The Director of Lands and Mines for the Federal informed the Company of the
decision of the Land Executive Committee (powers of SA Selangor in respect of
lands in FT had been transferred to it) that the application will only be approved
on two conditions:
1. The Company has to surrender its perpetuity title in exchange for a Lease for
99 years
2. The Company has to pay additional premium and new taxes amounting to
$656,471 (later reduced to $623,199)
The Company failed to comply and the Collector of Land Revenue served a
notice to remedy their failure to change the use of land from agriculture to
commercial

Decisions of the High Court

Surrender of title may only be made with the consent of the
registered proprietor and the approval of Land Executive Committee
but no such consent was obtained.
To obtain such consent by withholding approval with a threat of
forfeiture is improper and contrary to law.
Land Executive Committee has no power to impose such a
condition.

Federal Court
Issue: Whether there is a condition for a specified category of land use for the
respondents land, and if so, what is it?
Decision of the Federal Court
The said land was a town land held under a registry title, thus s. 53 (2) of NLC does
not apply and there is no implied condition that is hall be used for agricultural
purposes only.
In order for the land to become subject to building purpose, action must be taken by
the State Authority under section 54 or the landowner to apply under s.124. The
Company did not apply for the imposition of the category of building under s. 124 of
NLC
The Company also failed in erecting the building to apply for the imposition of the
category building to their title and this constituted a breach of condition
Appeal allowed.

Privy Council
Issue:
1. Whether the conditions on the original lease have the
effect that the land is required to be used only for
agricultural purposes?
2. Whether the land was lawfully used for the erection of
a building?

Privy Council
Held: The stamping Lease for agricultural land on the original
lease could not have the effect to impose a condition for use for
agriculture only and it was not possible to infer from the lease an
intention to restrict the use of land to agriculture
The land was town land held under Registry Title and thus s. 53(3)
of NLC applies with the result that there was an implied condition
that it shall be used neither for agricultural nor for industrial purpose
There is no ground for interpreting s. 53(3) of NLC as providing a
general prohibition against use for building purposes.