JUDGMENT

Idrus Harun FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This is a judgment of this court on an appeal by the Superintendent of Land and Survey Department Kuching-Divisional Office and the State Government of Sarawak, the defendants to the action, against the order of the Court of Appeal made on 27 October 2017. Before going more closely into this appeal, it is necessary to state at the outset that this judgment sets forth the majority opinion of the judicial panel of this court which is agreed to by my learned sisters Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Rohana Yusuf PCA and Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ, having read this judgment and the conclusion reached in draft.

[2] The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by Ratnawati Hasbi Mohamad Suleiman, the plaintiff to the action, setting aside in the result, the High Court Order dated 29 February 2016. Shortly stated, the Court of Appeal in the aforesaid order granted a declaration that the 1st appellant's failure to comply with mandatory procedural provisions of ss 49, 51, 52, 53 and 54 of the Sarawak Land Code (Cap 81) in the resumption process of the subject land taken by the 1st appellant up to the registration of Declaration of Resumption vide Instrument No: L679/2012 (the first resumption) whereby the same was resumed to the State on 12 March 2012 without any notice being given to the respondent herein and/or without her knowledge was fatal and therefore null and void. The status quo of the subject land prior to the first resumption exercise was ordered to be reinstated and was to be re-alienated to the respondent pursuant to s 15A of the Sarawak Land Code (Cap 81). However, the minister was at liberty to impose a fresh s 48 declaration and have it re-gazetted if the State was still interested to acquire the subject land on account that the s 48 declaration gazetted on 2 July 2009 affecting the subject land was deemed extinguished and lapsed upon the convening of the first inquiry. Following the above decision, the respondent was ordered to make full repayment of the sum of RM811,693.89 to the second appellant without interest and her claim for special and general damages was allowed with interest.