“How long must justice wait?”
That was the unspoken question echoing through the courtroom in Putrajaya. The year was 2025. But the story began in 1956.
Act I: The Land and the Wait
A rubber estate in Batu. Roughly 263 acres. The Selangor State government wanted it for public use.
Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd agreed—in principle. But the government only offered RM5,282 per acre.
Semantan demanded RM13,000.
They were worlds apart. Still, they accepted partial payment: RM1.3 million in 1956, and another RM79,000 in 1959. But they made it clear—it was without prejudice to their claim for fair compensation.
Semantan then tried what seemed obvious—apply to the High Court under the Land Acquisition Enactment.
The High Court refused. It held that the land area mentioned in the gazette notice differed from the one surveyed. And so, jurisdiction was denied.
Semantan was locked out of the process.
But the government? It moved forward. Took possession. Issued title to the Federal Lands Commissioner. Built roads, offices, mosques, and a township.
Time passed. Forty years.
Act II: The Return and the Rejection
In 1983, Semantan tried again. A mandamus application, seeking to compel the Collector to complete the acquisition process.
Struck out. The Public Authority Protection Act 1948 barred it.
The Supreme Court agreed: the delay was too long, and Semantan had not exhausted other legal avenues.
In 1989, a writ action followed.
The High Court struck it out.
But in 1994, the Federal Court reinstated it. Semantan filed a fresh suit in 2003.
This time, they won.
In 2009, the High Court declared that Semantan retained a beneficial interest in the land. The government had unlawfully possessed it. Semantan was entitled to possession and mesne profits.
In 2012, the Court of Appeal affirmed it.
In 2019, the Federal Court refused leave to appeal.
Semantan had won on paper. But not in reality.
The land was still in the government’s name.
Act III: Paper Judgment, Public Land
In 2017, Semantan applied again—for a mandamus. This time, not just to complete an acquisition. But to compel the government to return the land.
The High Court rejected it in 2022. The judgment, it said, was declaratory, not enforceable.
A declaration alone couldn’t change the registry.
Semantan tried another approach: section 417 of the National Land Code. They asked the Registrar of Titles to transfer the land back.
The High Court agreed.
But then came the appeals.
Three of them.
The Court of Appeal heard them together.
Could Semantan enforce its beneficial interest? Could a mandamus be granted? Was the court allowed to order the recovery of land from the government?
Act IV: The Letter of the Law
The law was clear.
Section 29(1)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956: no court shall order the recovery of land from the government. Only declarations are allowed.
A mandamus, the Court held, would circumvent that prohibition.
No matter how unjust the history. No matter that the land now housed courts, highways, mosques, stadiums.
“Semantan Estate may be right,” the court implied, “but we are bound by statute.”
A declaration, even if final, cannot grow teeth through a subsequent mandamus. The 2009 judgment had no executable orders.
The court was sympathetic. But the remedy Semantan sought was not legally available.
Their rights were declared. But they could not reclaim the land.
Instead, they had to pursue compensation.
Closing Act: Law, Not Longing
This was not just a case about land.
It was about the limits of remedies against the government.
The courts were not without compassion. But law is not sentiment. It is structure. And it respects boundaries.
Semantan waited 70 years. The government built a city. The courts declared rights—but would not undo a township.
Legal Takeaways
🧭 Constitutional Principles
- Article 13(2), Federal Constitution: No law shall provide for compulsory acquisition of property without adequate compensation.
- Article 162(6) allows pre-Merdeka laws to be modified to conform to the Constitution. But it does not rewrite remedies beyond statutory limits.
⚖️ Governing Statutes
- Government Proceedings Act 1956, section 29(1)(b): Courts may not order recovery of land or delivery of property from the Government. Only declarations of entitlement are allowed.
- Specific Relief Act 1950, section 8(3): Bars suits against the Government for recovery of possession.
🏛 Key Case Law Authorities
- Pemungut Hasil Tanah v Kam Gin Paik [1983] & [1986]
The Federal Court and Privy Council reinforced that declarations are the only permissible remedy against the Government for land recovery. - Minister of Finance, Sabah v Petrojasa [2008]
Established when mandamus may be issued—to enforce statutory duties, not declarations. - Takako Sakao v Ng Pek Yuen [2009]
Confirmed that declaratory judgments are not enforceable and do not carry execution powers. - Kelana Megah v Kerajaan Negeri Johor [2017]
Court affirmed that even where land is acquired unlawfully, the remedy is compensation, not return of land.
🪶 Final Reflection
Semantan Estate’s case is a lesson not only in patience but in the boundaries of legal relief.
Courts can declare what is right.
But not everything declared can be restored.
And sometimes, justice comes—not in acres returned—but in the compensation rightly owed.
Notes
This article was prepared based on the reported land acquisition case of Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd
v. The Government Of Malaysia & Ors And Other Appeals [2025] MLRAU 208, which was decided by the Court of Appeal in July 2025.
This article is meant to provide educational and entertainment value to you, the reader of this website. Please do not consider it a substitute for legal advice from a qualified lawyer. If you’re interested, we offer paid consultations on land matters. Get in touch if you want to schedule an appointment.
Thanks for reading!