|
Land Code changes in store to tackle fraud |
|
|
|
Friday, 30 October 2009 |
|
New Straits Times
By V. Anbalagan
PUTRAJAYA: The Attorney-General's Chambers is proposing amendments to the
National Land Code to stop cases of forgery and fraudulent land transfer, the
Federal Court was told yesterday.
Chambers head of civil division See Mee Chun told this to a five-man bench
chaired by Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi, who heard an appeal involving a land
transfer dispute.
"We agree that the 2001 Federal Court ruling in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v
Boonsom Bunyanit, must be revisited and overruled," she said when addressing the
bench as friend of the court.
The chambers was invited to participate in the proceeding as disputing parties
in the appeal wanted the Federal Court to depart from the 2001 ruling as it was
not in line with Section 340 of the Land Code.
See said the ruling had "created havoc" in land transactions.
Zaki asked See why the chambers took time to propose changes to the law.
She replied: "There are several issues that need to be looked into, including
compensation to those who had lost their land."
See said the chambers was now looking forward to the ruling to assist them in
making the necessary amendments to the law.
The history of the case could be traced to early 1970 when businessman Tan Ying
Hong, in the words of the High Court, "mysteriously", became a registered
proprietor of a nine-acre plot of land in Kuantan.
A conman who now could not be located, forged a power of attorney from Tan and
got the land charged to United Malayan Banking Corporation (now RHB Bank Bhd) to
obtain overdraft and loan facilities amounting to RM300,000 in favour of Cini
Timber Industries Sdn Bhd.
Cini Timber defaulted payment and the bank started foreclosure proceedings
against Tan, the registered land owner.
Tan, represented by counsel T. Mura Raju, filed an application in the High Court
in 1985 to seek a declaration that the charges with the bank were of no effect
as they were created by a forged power of attorney.
The High Court in 2003 dismissed Tan's application which was affirmed by the
Court of Appeal last year.
In May, Tan obtained leave to appeal and the legal question posed was whether an
acquirer of registered charge, title or other interest by way of forgery obtains
an immediate indefeasible interest or title.
This question of law paved the way for the apex court to review the Adorna case
as the issue was similar.
Lawyer Datuk Bastion Vendargon and Ong Siew Wan appeared for the bank while
Roger Tan held a watching brief for the Bar Council.
Judgment was reserved.
Comments () |
|
|
|
|
|
|
