TORRENS SYSTEM Fink v Roberton

TS established a new mode of conveyancing

whereby the title to lad and interest in land
depends upon registration and not upon
- A system whereby the title to land and
instrument between parties.
interests in land depends upon registration and
not upon the instrument between parties
Sime Bank v Mohd Hassan Bin Sulaiman
- registration is everything and any dealing must
NLC 1965 was made effective from 1 st January
be registered in order to gain recognition
1966 whereby thenceforth a uniform system of
 No document or other interest in property
land tenure and dealing existed throughout
is effective unless and until it is recorded at
Peninsular Malaysia. The system practised is
the centralised registry.
commonly referred to as TS.
 Overcome defects in the Deeds System
 Modify MCLT - provide simplicity
PRINCIPLE OF TS
- every land is evidenced by a certificate of title
- title to land is acquired by registration
HISTORY OF TORRENS SYSTEM
Introduced in 1864 by British, invented by Sir
1) MIRROR PRINCIPLE
Robert Torrens
- the register reflects accurately and completely
the current facts about a person’s title
 Straits Settlements
- name, land alienated, area, survey plan,
Governor of SS sent WE Maxwell to Australia to
category, amount rent, encumbrances
study the torrens system. As a result of his
recommendation and several ordinances were
2) CURTAIN PRINCIPLE
passed to incorporate TS in SS.
- one does not need to go behind the certificate
- process of adopting Land Code 1965 requires
of title as it contains all the info about title
the transformation of the land tenure system
- ownership need not be proved by long
prevailing at that time.
complicated doc that are kept by the owner
- NLC (P&M) promulgated to facilitate the
process of converting the existing land tenure
Creelman & Anor. v Hudson Bay
system to TS.
To allow respective investigation would defeat
- The application was not smooth due to the
the purpose and effect of registration
historical factor that influenced the introduction
of different land tenure.
BASIC PRINCIPLE
 Federated Malay States
 Register is everything
- practising the customary land tenure
1) Details of all dealings with land must be
- states that the passed regulations based on TS
officially registered on the title to that land.
was Perak General Land Regulations, General
2) Registration alone gave validity to the dealing
Land Regulation
by creating a legal estate or interest in land
- the land law in Ng Sembilan and Pahang was
- S.340 of NLC 1965
repealed and replaced by either Land
Enactment or Registration of Title Enactment.
Sidek & 461 Others v Gov of Perak
(seperate enactment - consolidated into one in
A came to Perak and opened up a jungle area in
FMS Land Enactment (NLC 1965))
Kg Gajah. Other settlers also settled in the area.
The gov resettled some settlers to land that A
CONCEPTS AND FEATURES OF TS
were occupying.
- Register is the official record
- A were given notice to vacate.
- Landowners can deal with land relying on the
- A claimed they were entitled in law and equity
info in the register and using stereotype
to be in posession of land as they occupied.
statutory forms to register dealings
Held : NLC does not recognize a posessory title
- Guaranteed by state once land is surveyed and
to the land and adverse possession of alienated
registered
land by a 3rd party (the only way to obtain State
Land is through NLC)
Teh Bee v K. Maruthamuthu
Registration is the key to title.
- to allow an investigation as to the right of the
person who holds the title would be wrong as it
would defeat the purpose

Gibbs v Messer
Woman owned a land and gave her solicitor the
certificate of title and a power of attorney to
her husband
- the solicitor forged a transfer to a fictitious
person and removed the women’s name from
the register.
- the solicitor arranged a mortgage and used the
money
- The mortgage is unable to be registered
- Woman brought an action and wanted the title
to be returned

Held : the objective of the system is to save the

person dealing with the registered proprietors
from the trouble and expense of going behind
the register in order to investigate the history of
their author’s title and to satisfy themselves of
its validity.
WHAT IS LAND?
Land is defined in S.5 of NLC 1965
a) The surface of the Earth and all substances
forming the surface
b) Below the surface and all substances
c) Trees and plants, all natural products
whether or not planted by humans, above
or below the surface
d) All things attached to the Earth,
permanently fastened to anything
attached to the Earth, above or below the
surface
e) Land covered by water
S.5(d) of NLC,
Issue : Whether a particular item affixed to the
Earth forms part of the land or remains as a
chattel?
- the word “permanently fastened” is vague
WHAT IS FIXTURE?
Fixture are chattels (movable property) which
has been fixed or attached to the land as to
become part of the freehold.
- anything which has become attached to the
land or building stood on land as to form part of
it.
- the concept of land under Malaysian TS is
similar to that English law of Property.
- Hence Malaysia adopts the maxim,
“Quic Quid Plantatur Solo Solo Cedit”
(Whatever attached to the land becomes part of
the land)
- As provided in the case of,
Holland v Hodgson
An article which is affixed to the land even
slightly is to be considered part of the land
UNLESS the circumstances show that it was all
along to continue as a chattel, the onus is on
those who contend that it is chattel.
English law relating to fixture applies in
Malaysia as provided in the case of,
Goh Chong Hin & Anor v The Consolidated
Malay Rubber Estates Ltd
Goh Chong Hin charged his land including
buildings and factory to SRMS Lechmanan
Chetty. There were machinery in the factory.
Annexed by nuts and bolts to concrete
foundations sunk in the soil. Goh Chong Hin
executed a Bill of Sale over the machinery in the
factory to The Consolidated Malay Rubber
Estates Ltd. The chargee by the consent of Goh
Chong Hin took possession of the land and the
factory. The grantee applied for order to seize
and sell the machinery by virtue of the Bill of
Sale. The charge in possession opposed the
application.
Issue: Whether the machine is part of the land?
The trial judge decided in the respondent’s
favour and the charge then appealed.
In appeal, it was decided that the machinery
was annexed by bolts and nuts to concrete
foundations sunk in the soil.
- so as according to the case of Holland v
Hodgson, the machine was part of the land
- onus should have been upon grantee
Next issue : applicability of English law of fixture
in these states - not prohibited by S.6 of Civil
Law Act
TEST TO DETERMINE FIXTURE OR CHATTELS?
The English law of fixyure provides 2 tests for
establishing whether an item is a fixture or a
chattel.
As provided in the case of Holland v Hodgson,
The owner of a mill purchased some looms for
use in his mill. They were attached to the stone
floor by nails driven into wooden beams.
The owner of a mill then mortgaged the mill to
the claimant but the owner was at the time
under a bankruptcy. The owner then failed to
keep up with the payment and mills was
repossessed.
The purpose of the attachment of the machine
was so that the machine remained in place
when in use because this a necessary
requirement in respect of how they were
powered.
Issue : Whether the looms were fixtures or
chattels?
Held : Loom was fixture and forms part of the
land.
The court introduced the degree and purpose of
annexation test.
DEGREE OF ANNEXATION
- looking at the degree to which an article is
affixed to the land
- to what extent an injury/ damage will be
caused to the item or premise upon its removal
- in certain case, item could be removed easily
without any apparent damage
Even if the removal of article does not result in
damage to the premise, we cannot presume
that it is chattel as we need to look at its
purpose.
Lambourn v McLelan
Whenever the removal of any item can be
affected without causing material injury to the
estate or destroying the essential character of
the article it is more likely to be considered as
chattel.
Degree of annexation test applied in Malaysia in
the case of,
The Shell Company Of The Federation Of
Malaya Ltd V Commissioner Of The Federal
Capital Of Kuala Lumpur
Underground tanks at petrol station buried two
feet below ground level, turfed over and
covered with concrete. The manner of their
removal, if it has to be done, shows how firmly
the tanks are embedded in the earth: To
remove the tanks, the turf, concrete or
tarmacadam is taken up, the earth excavated,
the concrete manhole boxes removed, all pipe
connections unbolted and the tank, with its
concrete sinker weights can then be raised with
blocks and tackle.
The tanks, when placed underground, were
intended to remain there.
Held : The underground tanks are fixtures and
therefore are land within the definition of land
under NLC.
PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION
- purpose to be inferred not from the motive of
the person who affixed the item but from a
consideration of circumstances of the case
- if the purpose is for better enjoyment of the
land or building as to improve its usefulness and
value, this would strengthen the presumption
established under first test.
Mather v Fraser
Where an item is affixed by the owner though
only affixed by bolts and screws, it is to be
considered part of the land at all events when
the object of setting up the item is to enhance
the value of the premises to which it is annexed.
Spyer v Phillipson
A tenant has the right to remove his fixtures
provided no substantial damage was done to
the premises.
Leigh v Taylor
Madame de Falbe was a life tenant. She hung in
the drawing room of her mansion, tapestries
which belonged to her. Strips of wood were
placed over the wallpaper on the walls and
were fastened by nails to the walls. Canvas was
stretched over the strips of woods and nailed to
them. The tapestries were stretched over the
canvas and piece of wood.
Held : These tapestries were chattels which
were affixed to the walls for their own better
enjoyment as tapestries.
- unless it has become part of the house in any
intelligible sense, it is not a thing, which passes
to the air
EXCEPTIONS TO GENERAL RULE
- Tenant’s fixtures
- Trade fixtures
- Ornamental fixtures
- Fixtures under custom
 Tenant’s fixtures
- Things which are annexed to the land for the
purpose of trade or of domestic convenience or
ornament in so permanent a manner as to
become part of the land and yet the tenant who
has erected them is entitled to remove them
during his term or within a reasonable time
after its expiration.
- The law will presume that they were only put
up with the intention of being severed from the
land and removed by the tenant, and not for the
purpose of improving the interest of the
landlord.
Mather v Fraser
“Where, and, article is affixed by the owner of
the fee, though only affixed by bolts and screws,
it is to be considered part of the land, at all
events when the object of setting up the articles
is to enhance the value of the premises to which
it is annexed for the purpose to which those
premises are applied”.
Smith v City Petroleum
A tenant could remove petrol pumps from the
land because they were trade fixtures and could
be easily removed since they were only bolted
to the land. However, it was held that the petrol
tanks could not be removed because they have
become an integral part of the land and could
not be easily detached.
 Ornamental fixtures
Leigh v Taylor
Madame de Falbe was a life tenant. She hung in
the drawing room of her mansion, tapestries
which belonged to her. Strips of wood were
placed over the wallpaper on the walls and
were fastened by nails to the walls. Canvas was
stretched over the strips of woods and nailed to
them. The tapestries were stretched over the
canvas and piece of wood.
Held : These tapestries were chattels which
were affixed to the walls for their own better
enjoyment as tapestries.
 Custom fixtures
- E.g. a Malay wooden house by custom is
moveable property even when the usual Malay
plank house is built upon bricks and pillars with
foundations let into the soil, the house is
nevertheless a chattel.
Kiah v Som
A Malay traditional wooden house built on stilts
are regarded as personalty by proved custom
and not subject to the English law of fixtures.
ROMALPA CLAUSE
- the hirer must inform to the bank/ chargee the
existence of clause in the contract
- title to the goods remain vested in the seller
until fully paid by the buyer
Wiggins Teape (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Bahagia
Trading
A property was charged to the bank in which an
offset printing machine which wasunder hire
purchase scheme was affixed in that property to
the floor by bolts. The chargor failed in the loan
repayment and bank took proceedings to
enforce the charge. The existence of a hire
purchase agreement by which the owner of the
printing machine had retained the title until full
payment. Thus, the machine has become a
fixture and passed to the chargee
notwithstanding the clause.
Sungei Way Leasing v Lian Seng
D (owner of KL Plaza) had took up a loan and
charged the building. Later, a custom made air
conditioning unit bought under a hire purchase
was affixed to the building.
Clause ii : the lessor was to remain as the owner
of the unit and the lessee had no right to pass
the title of aircond to any 3rd party.
Held: Court must give effect to the intention of
parties arising from the hire purchase
agreement. Thus, the lessor had a better right
to the aircond unit.
Retention clause in favour of the P.
RIGHTS & POWER OF THE SA
State Authority?
S.5 of NLC 1965
“The Ruler or Governor as the case may be”.
RIGHT AND POWER
S.40(a) & (b) of NLC 1965
- all state land and inclusive of minerals and
rock materials is vested in the SA
State Land?
S.5 of NLC 1965
“All land within the boundaries of the State”.
S.41 of NLC provides that the SA has all the
powers to dispose of all property vested in it
- gives the right to SA to give away land and
what is found in the land as provided under
S.42(1)(a) - (e)
(a) Alienation
(b) Reservation of land
(c) Issuance of TOL
(d) Permit to extract and remove rock material
(e) Permit to use airspace
What the SA cannot do? - S.42(2) of NLC
To whom land can be disposed?
S.43 (a) - (d) of NLC
(a) natural person other than minor
(b) corporations having power under their
constitution to hold land
(c) sovereign, government, organisation and
other person authorised to hold land
(d) bodies expressly empowered to hold land
MINOR
Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat
P, an infant executed transfers or lands in
favour of the D of 2 pieces of land in Mentakab
and the action brought by P’s next friend
appointed by an order of court is to have these
2 transfers set aside on the ground that at the
time the transfers was executed, the P is a
minor.
Held : The transfers made was void and order
the D to restore back the property to the P.
ENJOYMENT OF LAND (not absolute)
S.44(1) of NLC
- Paramount rights (natural rights)
a) Rights to air/ airspace/ light
b) Rights to support from adjoining land
c) Rights to access
S.44(1)(a) of NLC
Rights to use airspace
- as reasonably necessary
- lawful use and enjoyment
- practical limits imposed to utilize the right
- exclusive but not absolute
- limited by S.19 Civil Aviation Act
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
An advertisement sign board erected by D on
their own property which projected into the
airspace above the P’s shop which is claimed as
trespass. Reflect by S.44 of NLC.
Common Law Principle :
“Whose is the soil, his is also that which is above
it”.
Corbett v Hill
The owner of the land is the owner of
everything up to the sky and down to the centre
of the Earth.
S.19 of Civil Aviation Act
No action can be maintained by the land owner
for nuisance or trespass simply because of the
flight if aircraft at a reasonable height.
Sweetland v Curtis Airport
P owned a track of land opposite to where the D
intended to establish an airport and flying
school. P sought an injunction against the D,
establishing that the airport will materially
affect the use and enjoyment of their property.
Held : No trespass
RIGHT TO SUPPORT OF LAND IN ITS NATURAL
STATE BY ADJOINING LAND
- s.44(1)(b) of NLC - Land must be in a natural
state
- adopted from common law principle : remedy
is available to someone whose right have been
violated
- negative right : something should not be done
on your own land or property that might
endanger the land or property of others
Conditional right (in order to have right of
support from adjoining land these conditions
must be fulfilled)
a) Land at lower level must support the land
above
b) Land must be adjoining to each other
c) Must be in natural state
d) No additional strength is to be given beyond
what is on land (weakened state)
WHAT IS NATURAL STATE?
CL : every place of land has an absolute right of
support from adjoining land and land must be in
its natural state
- unburdened with building and unweakened by
excavation
Madam Chah Siam v Chop Choy
The P, was in occupation of a tin mining pond
under a TOL on a State Land which she used for
rearing fish. On the adjoining land, the D had a
deep open cast mine, very close to the
boundary of the P’s fish pond. Subsequently, as
a result of D’s activities, the earth gave away
and water from the fish pond flowed into the
D’s mine, causing substantial loss of the P’s fish
stock. The P filed an action for damages.
Held : The pond is an excavation caused by
mining which has filled up with water. Thus, the
land in its excavation state is not entitled to
rights of support. The presence of such water
and the pressure exerted only increases the
weakened state of land. Land which contained
the pond was only entitled to the degree of
support as it would have required in its
unexcavated condition and had no rights to
additional support due to its weakened state.
Guan Soon Tin Mining v Ampang
Landslide occurred due to wet weather but the
mining land adjoining P’s land was excavated by
the predecessor and D only worked on the
mining land and since no evidence shows that
the landslide was due to mining operation and
thus D was not liable for it.
RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO FORESHORE & SEABED
- S.44(1)(c) of NLC
- acquired through the contract between parties
to pass and repass over someone’s land
- foreshore : land between the highest
watermark and seabed (floor of sea)
If the land has been submerged by the sea, the
proprietor’s right to claim ownership of land is
subject to provision of S.46(1) of NLC.
- S.49 of NLC
How rights of access can be created :
a) Natural right : S.44(1)(c)
b) Acquired right : S.282 (eastment)
c) Imposed right by SA : S.388
SUBSIDIARY RIGHT (Limited Rights)
- S.45(1) of NLC
The proprietor, lessee and licensee as
mentioned in S.44 of NLC shall be entitled to
a) To extract, move or use within the
boundaries of the land any rock material in or
upon the land
b) To fell, clear, destroy, or use within the
boundaries any forest produce.
- S.45(2)(a) & (b) - no right to extract unless
obtain permit, if extract without permit become
offence (x under NLC)
S.426 of NLC - illegal extraction
TOL :
Within - S.45(1)(a) of NLC
Beyond - S.69 of NLC (FORM 4B - Special
Purpose)
REVERSION TO SA
S.46(1) of NLC - alienated land shall revert to
the SA
a) When the term of leasehold in the register
document of title (RDT) expires
- State Lease - x permanently stay on the land,
- term of 99 years
- Mukim Lease
b) When the notice of forfeiture is publish in the
gazette in S.130 of NLC
- forfeiture (S.97 & S.100)
- due to failure to pay rent (S.97) or breach of
condition (S.254) or rights to forfeiture (S.100)
c) Proprietor without successor
d) surrender
ADVERSE POSESSION
S.48 of NLC
- one who has legally occupied state land may
not claim to have any right to have such land
alienated to it based on any long period of
occupation
Offence : S.425 of NLC (illegal occupation)
Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors v
Government of Perak & Ors
The appellants opened up a jungle area. The
appellant were squatters. As more and more
squatters came to settle in the area, the state
government re-organised the settlement which
resulted in new settlers being placed in the
lands where the appellants were already in
occupation. It was alleged by the appellants that
the District Officer had promised each settler
family three acres of padi land, subject to
successful interviews. After interviews were
held, the appellants were unsuccessful and
were subsequently given notice to stop work
and to vacate the area. The appellants brought
an action that they are entitled to be in
possession of the land originally pioneered,
opened up and occupied by them. The
respondents claimed that the appellants' claim
were baseless as they were illegal occupiers of
state land and sought to strike out the
appellants' action.
The action was struck out by the High Court on
the basis that the appellants were trespassers
on state land and that there can be no adverse
possession of state land. The appellants' appeal
to the Federal Court was dismissed on the
grounds that the appellants had no cause of
action either in law or in equity as they were
squatters. The Federal Court also cited the
offence under Section 425 of the NLC as well as
rights under Section 341 of the same code and
stressed that the only way to obtain state land
is by way of making a formal application for land
under the NLC.

Kabra Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ahmad B. Sahlan

An oral agreement gave by MB of Selangor will
not give the D any legal right to occupy the land.
DISPOSAL OF LAND BY SA
- S. 42 of NLC (Reserved Land)
- S.42 (1)(b) of NLC
Piece of land set aside for future use and
enjoyment, to make it effective, it must be
gazetted (S.62 of NLC)
POWER TO LEASE RESERVED LAND
S.63 of NLC - where the reserved land is not
being used for the purpose which it was
reserved, the SA can lease it to the person or
body (S.43) not exceeding 21 years
REVOCATION OF RESERVED LAND
S.64 of NLC
Reserved land → Revoked → State Land →
Alienated Land
Government of State of Ng Sembilan v Yap
Chong Lan
Provision of S.64(2) of NLC is mandatory and
must be complied with before a revocation of
reservation can take effect.
TEMPORARY OCCUPATION LICENSE
S.65 of NLC
A license or permission to occupy land in
temporary nature granted by SA for some
restricted or permitted purpose.
Papoo v Veeriah
TOL is exactly what the name implies, it is a
license to occupy and nothing more.
Paruvathy v Krishnan
TOL only confers a personal right to the holder.
The right comes to an end when the holder dies
or when the company dissolves. It is not
transferable. The license dies with the holder.
DURATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF TOL
S.67 of NLC
General rule : TOL are to expired at the calendar
year which it commences (S.67(1) of NLC)
Exception : could be renewed by SA up to max 3
times unless stated in S.67(3) of NLC
TOL will be issued in FORM 4A.
TRANSFERABLE OF TOL
S.68 of NLC
- shall not be capable of assignement and shall
terminate upon death of the holder or upon
dissolution of body
- license terminates automatically on the death
or the dissolution of the body to whom it was
granted
- revert the possessory right of the land back to
SA
- ex-TOL holder who remains on the land ia an
unlawful occupier of State Land and can be
prosecuted for such offense under S.425 of NLC
PP v Yap Tai
Ex-TOL holder to be given a reasonable period
to vacate the land and remove his belongings.
TOL terminates upon death,
Papoo v Veeriah
A widow applied for the transfer of a house
located on her late husband's temporary
occupation licence (TOL) to her own name as
the sole beneficiary of the estate of the
deceased.
Held : The court dismissed her application
stating that the property cannot be transferred
as it is a TOL land. The late husband did not
possesses any rights or ownership on the land
as it is only been given temporarily to him under
the TOL agreement.
Paruvathy v Krishnan
The A’s husband died, the Seremban Collector
Revenue transfers the TOL to the appellant. The
A (TOL holder) was alleged to have allowed R to
stay on the land and build a house under a doc
that she signed purporting to give R and
another person equal shares in land. A asked R
to vacate the house and land.
Held : TOL only confers a personal right to the
holder. The right comes to an end when the
holder in the case of a natural person dies or
company dissolve. The license is not
transferable. Thus, the doc is void for illegality
as it contravenes S.68 of NLC.
Fatimah v Moideen Kutty
In this case the respondent occupied the land
which was originally held by the husband of the
appellant on a TOL. The husband of the
appellant died and when the Collector of the
Land Revenue heard of the death, he refused to
renew the licence. The appellant as
administratrix claimed rent from the
respondent for the due.
Held : Since the govt had refused to renew the
TOL in the name of the deceased or anyone
else, neither his estate nor she had any rights to
the land. Thus, she was not entitled to the rent.
TRANSACTION NOT AMOUNTING TO
ASSIGNMENT
- not wrong for a TOL holder to grant a tenancy
on the TOL land or on buildings built on TOL
land as this does not amount to a transfer of
TOL
Govindaraju v Krishnan
A TOL holder rented out rooms to R. When A
terminated the tenancy through lawful notice in
writing, R refused to deliver vacant possession
arguing that the tenancy was illegal as A is only
a TOL holder.
Held : Letting out of room in house on TOL land
not amounted to assignment of TOL.
Tindok Besar v Tinjar
The agreement was not to transfer the TOL but
to permit the contractor to use the land and
therefore not illegal as against the non-
transferability.
Hee Cheng v Krishnan
The P and the D entered into a contract where
the D agreed to sell to the P a house built upon
a piece of a TOL land belongs to the D. The P
claimed specific performance of the agreement
or alternatively damages for the D’s breach of
contract.
Held : The contract entered into was an attempt
to sell and to purchase the defendant’s rights
under the TOL license which is contrary to Rule
41 of the Land Rules 1930 which stated that “No
license for the temporary occupation of State
land shall be transferable”. As such the contract
was unlawful as it being of such nature to
defeat the provision of any law (Section 24 of
Contract Act) and therefore is void.
Held : A sale of a house built on a TOL land
amounts to a transfer of a holder’s rights under
the license and it is prohibited.
Cheo Lean How v Fock Fong Looi
Too Sun, husband of appellant was issued with
TOL to occupy State Land. A dwelling house was
erected by Chung Yen on a portion of State
Land. Chung Yen then decided to leave the
district and sold the dwelling house to Loke
Seng, father of R. This transaction was reduced
into writing and was witnessed by Too Sun.
Held : It was not the TOL holder but it was the
private licensee who sold the house. Therefore
the transaction was not against the legal
prohibition against transfer of TOL.
DUAL PURPOSE LICENSES IN RESPECT OF THE
SAME LAND TO DIFFERENT HOLDER
Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin
R was issued a TOL in respect of a small plot on
a piece of land for a house site. There were
already some fruit trees on the land including
coconut trees. In respect of those trees, R had
also obtained a license to pluck the coconut
trees. In respect of the same piece of land, a
TOL is issued to A for the purpose only of
rearing poultry. A cut down some coconut trees
and R claimed loss.
Held : R was not the owner of the trees and was
not entitled to claim. In fact, he could only claim
damages for loss of income.
CANCELLATION/EXPIRATION OF LICENSE

 RENEWAL
Teh Bee v K. Maruthamuthu
The appellant, K.Maruthamuthu claimed that he
had been occupying the land for 2 decades
when the Ng. Sembilan State Authority decided
to alienate it to Teh Bee. He had been renewing
the TOL since then. It was a vacant land when
he went into occupation. He himself had applied
for the alienation of the land. He has received a
reply that his application was under
consideration and was hoping that his
application would be approved.
The holder undr a TOL obtain no legal or
equitable rights over the land he occupies by
virtue of license other than to occupy the land
temporarily from year if he can have his license
renewed annually but no obligation on the part
of authorities to grant a renewal of TOL for any
subsequent year.
S.42, S.76 and S.78 is the full discretionary
power of the SA. At the time, the respondent,
Teh Bee made payment, there was no other
applicant. So, the SA had given Teh Bee a fresh
approval as she is in fact was registered as
proprietress. This upheld the principle in TS that
“Registration is the key to title”.

 WHETHER HOLDER IS ENTITLED TO BE

COMPENSATED?
Teh Bee v K. Maruthamuthu
The license holder does not acquire any rights
to be compensated by a subsequent holder of
such license of the same kind or by subsequent
RP of the said land for any expenses the holder
may have incurred for the period he occupies
the land under the license.
Once TOL expires, one has no rights to be
compensated unless it is stated in the
agreement through S.47(2) of NLC.