Friday, November 21, 2008

Kes tanah

Sibuk saya di dalam minggu ini sehingga tidak sempat mengemaskini blog yang tidak seberapa ini. Saya pohon maaf kepada semua yang telah mengunjungi blog ini mengharapkan ada posting terbaru dari saya. Saya sibuk membuat persediaan bagi satu kes. Pada hari Isnin & Selasa minggu hadapan saya akan mengendalikan satu perbicaraan penuh di Mahkamah Tinggi P.Pinang. Satu kes tanah yang mirip kepada fakta kes tersohor Boonsam Boonyanit lwn Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd. Anakguam saya telah mendapati tanah miliknya telah ditukarmilik kepada sebuah syarikat tanpa pengetahuannya oleh seorang yang juga telah menyamar sebagai beliau (menggunakan kad pengenalan palsu). Pemindahan hakmilik tanah telah dilakukan di hadapan Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah di negeri Kedah bagi tanahnya di Pulau Pinang.

Mengikut keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Boonsam Boonyanit tersebut, seandainya tiada unsur "mala fide" (niat jahat) di dalam pemindahan hakmilikan tanah daripada pihak yang membeli tanah tersebut (pemilik terbaru), walaupun memang jelas terdapat penipuan dan pemalsuan oleh orang yang menyamar dan menipu tersebut, anakguam saya tidak akan mendapat kembali hakmilikan tanahnya dan pemilik yang baru (syarikat berkenaan) akan tetap dilindungi hakmilikannya oleh undang-undang (Seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara). Jadi apa yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pemilik baru tanah berkenaan adalah bahawasanya mereka sendiri tidak tahu-menahu adanya penipuan di dalam kes tersebut, amat mudah sekali beban pembuktian yang diletakkan ke atas mereka.

Begitulah dilema yang melanda salah satu cabang undang-undang tanah negara masa kini akibat keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di atas (walaupun ada percubaan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan baru-baru ini di dalam kes Au Meng Nam yang memberi sedikit sinar harapan kepada mereka yang teraniaya seperti kes anakguam saya, keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di atas masih lagi dianggap sebagai "a good law" (walaupun berbagai kritikan ilmiah dan kadangkala "case law" yang ditala ke atasnya) dan merupakan satu precedent yang mengikat di atas prinsip "stare decisis" dan wajib diikuti oleh Mahkamah yang lebih rendah hierarkinya, termasuk Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Tinggi).

Gopal Sri Ram JCA dalam membezakan kes Au Meng Nam dan Boonsom Boonyanit, telah mengatakan sedemikian di dalam penghakimannya;

Such a decision is, of course, binding because it established a new principle of law. This is an example of a true precedent. But where you have a case which involves the interpretation of a section in an Act of Parliament the doctrine of precedent has a lesser effect. See, Carter v. Bradbeer [1975] 1 WLR 1204, per Lord Diplock.

Jadi nasihat saya kepada tuan-puan sekelian, rajin-rajinlah menjengok ke pejabat tanah dan periksalah hal-ehwal tanah milik anda selalu. Anakguam saya (seorang makcik tua) saban tahun ke pejabat tanah membayar hasil tanahnya, tetapi masih lagi teraniaya. Sedar-sedar di dalam tahun 2005, cukai tanahnya telahpun dibayar oleh sepihak yang lain. Tanah tersebut telah juga dicagarkan kepada sebuah bank oleh pemilik yang baru dengan nilai pinjaman yang begitu lumayan sekali.

Sindiket-sindiket penipuan tanah ini bukan satu hal baru di negara kita, dan pihak berkuasa sedar akan permasalahan ini, namun demikian penipuan terhadap hakmilikan tanah ini masih lagi berleluasa dan malangnya ianya dilakukan di bawah batang hidung mereka yang sepatutnya melindungi hak dan kepentingan rakyat, oleh pihak Pejabat Tanah sendiri. Disebabkan nila setititik habis rosak susu sebelanga!

Lebih malang lagi, bila diperiksa dengan pihak Polis, siasatan untuk kes yang melibatkan perihal tanah milik anakguam saya ini, yang juga telah dilaporkan kepada pihak polis sejak tahun 2005 lagi, baru berjalan setakat 20% kata pegawai penyiasat terbaru kes ini. Beginilah nasib golongan marhaen di negara ini, sudahlah menghadapi masalah di dalam perundangan sivil dan dibeban dengan kos guaman, keadilan yang yang dipohon dari mereka yang berkuasa (melalui proses di bawah acara keadilan jenayah) juga amat longlai sekali penguatkuasaannya.

Akhir sekali izinkan saya kemukakan semula sebahagian daripada penghakiman Gopal Sri Ram JCA yang memberikan cahaya dan perspektif (akibat kekalutan yang ditimbulkan di dalam kes Boonsam Boonyanit di Mahkamah Persekutuan tersebut) kepada tujuan asal seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 digubal dan mengapa kepentingan dan hak mereka yang teraniaya ini perlu dilindungi;

The object and purpose of s. 340 is to protect registered proprietors of land by affording them certainty of title. This is a just result because it is unfair and unjust that the true owner of land should be deprived of it by the machinations of a rogue. When a court interprets a statute, particularly one which confers rights upon or grants protection to persons generally or a class, its duty is to derive a meaning that is fair, or in accordance with the purpose of the particular Act of Parliament. Put differently, an interpretation should not be placed which will produce an unsatisfactory or unfair result. Indeed, there is a presumption that Parliament does not intend an unfair or unjust result. See, Pesuruhjaya Ibu Kota Kuala Lumpur v. Public Trustee & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 30; ‘The Boucraa’ [1994] 1 All ER 20; Lim Phin Khian v. Kho Su Ming [1996] 1 CLJ 529.

dikemaskini 7.38am-22/11/2008

6 comments:

de minimis said...

LK

My best wishes to you and, especially your client. The Adorna case has scared many innocent Malaysian landowners. The interpretation of the National Land Code is completely wrong.

I hope your client will get the proper and fair justice. Any chance of lodging a police report against the crooks and cheats that did the scam? We've got to put all these really bad people in jail.

Lawyer Kampung said...

bro de minimis, thanks. Agree. Police report done, way back in 2005, but only 20% investigation work done todate. Thanks for asking that, updated current post accordingly. Cheers.

Ismail N said...

Salam bro,

Good luck to you & I also hope that your client will get the proper and fair justice. We are in KK pun byk kes sebegini and it good that u pointed out the role of Pejabat Tanah - one of the most corrupted agencies dlm govt. My sympathy to your client & others who suffers the same fate but there are many bone fide purchasers out there whose rights must be protected too. Nevertheless I agree with you & and de minimis that the interpretation of the National Land Code in Andorna case is wrong. The court should have impose higher burden to the defendant.

Kadang aku tension bro bila pikir pejabat tanah ni. Kalau tak pakai runners, tersadailah MOT sebulan dua.

P/S: Malam ni bola, jangan lupa. Aku start chambering this month. Ha ha.

Lawyer Kampung said...

Mail, thanks bro. God knows I need that luck.. hahaha ya, malam ni bola, kejar jangan tak kejar MU! Baru nak start chambering? Haha, dah 11 tahun grad tu. U mean Sabah Bar la? Chambering di firm Zaz ke? Kena ikut cakap master baik-baik nanti dia tak approve petition call to the bar tu.. ;-)

Caustic Dude said...

Tuan LK,
Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

You said "beban kos guaman". I thot YOU decide on the fee. Why don't you do it as a charity for the scam victim just this once. I promise you won't regret it. It feels good to do good for the sake of it.

-CD-

Abdullah AR said...

Bro.,

Just came across your blog. As a lawyer myself, any blog that uses the word lawyer, legal, law etc will catch my attention.

I think it is also worthwhile to read the judgment of Raus JCA in Au Meng Nam's case. Based on the judgment of Raus JCA, the burden is on the person seeking refuge under the proviso to S.340(3) as a bona fide purchaser for value to prove that he is a bona fide purchaser for value. That is once the Plaintiff has proved that the transfer to the existing proprietor had been tainted with one of the factors under S. 340(2).

It is my understanding of Raus JCA's judgment that the failure of the person claiming to be bona fide purchaser to take all the usual steps that would usually be taken by a bona fide purchaser e.g. conducting searches would point to lack of bona fide on his part. Suspicious purchase price e.g. way below the market price or very high deposit would is also an indicator of lack of bona fide. And, it is for the so-called bona fide purchaser to explain all these and prove that he is bona fide. Otherwise, he would fail based on the criteria laid down by Raus JCA in Au Meng Nam.

The problem with Sri Ram's judgment in Au Meng Nam is that it appears to offend the stare decisis rule, something that Raus JCA managed to get around. It is unlikely that you will win your case if you rely on Sri ram's judgment except if you have manage to overturn Adorna at the Federal Court.

Regards
AAR