LETTERS: The recent arrests of four people trying to prevent the eviction of farmers in Kanthan, Tambun in Perak have brought to light the plight of farmers who are illegally occupying land.
Such incidents are not new.
The Kanthan farmers' case involves two legal issues: adverse possession and temporary occupation licence (TOL).
According to newspaper reports, the farmers in Kanthan have been toiling on 1,000 acres of land owned by the Perak State Development Corporation for the past six decades.
Does working the land for a long period entitle one to own the property? In other words, can a person become the owner of the land just because he has occupied it for a long, uninterrupted period of time?
The simple answer is no. The National Land Code does not recognise the English law of adverse possession. Instead, Malaysia practises the Torrens system, where registration is the cornerstone.
To prove ownership of land, a person must ensure that his name is registered on the title. It was decided in the case of Mercu Pusu Development Sdn Bhd v Setara Jaya Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 2798 that "Under the [National Land Code] or the Torrens system, registration is everything".
Therefore, the fact that a farmer has been occupying and working the land for more than 60 years is irrelevant as long as the land is not registered in his name.
It was reported that the Perak government has been issuing TOL to the occupiers. The TOL does not change the status of an occupier of the land into a registered proprietor, nor does it grant the Kanthan farmers any right to the land on which they had toiled.
All the TOL does is grant the farmers permission to occupy the land, which is owned by the registered proprietor. Without this permission, the farmers are considered trespassers, and they can be sued.
The TOL is a temporary personal licence that is only for an individual. It cannot be assigned and will expire at the end of the year in which it commences [S68 (1) and S67(1) National Land Code 2020].
Furthermore, subject to the condition under which a TOL is issued, the land administrator may, on the application of a licensee, renew such a licence for a term of not more than one calendar year [S67(3) National Land Code 2020].
The final decision as regards the imposition of conditions on a TOL and the decision to renew it lies solely with the state authority. Once the TOL is revoked, the holder is considered a trespasser on the land [Public Prosecutor v Yap Tai(F) [1947] 1 MLJ 50].
This is the position of the Kanthan farmers since it was reported that they had failed to pay for their TOL, thereby breaching the conditions of the licence.
As long as the Kanthan farmers are not the registered owners of the land that they are cultivating, their interests will never be secure.
The state government must work towards a fair and just solution for the farmers and implement land policies that protect the rights of all Malaysians.
MARK GOH
Senior Lecturer, Department of Law, HELP University
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times