KL Residents Group Sues to Strike Down Land Acquisition Act Powers

Key figures

• KLRA+SD has filed a constitutional challenge against Sections 3(1)(b) and (c) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court (FMT, 27 October)
• The group cites Articles 8(1) and 13(1) of the Federal Constitution, on equality before the law and protection of property, as its grounds (FMT)
• No hearing date, land parcel, compensation figure or number of affected residents has been reported (EdgeProp, FMT)
• A separate Urban Renewal Bill, which Cabinet decided in January to withdraw for improvements, was still on the parliamentary order paper as of 20 October, Minister Nga Kor Ming told Parliament (EdgeProp)

News summary

The Kuala Lumpur Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association (KLRA+SD) has filed a constitutional challenge at the Kuala Lumpur High Court against parts of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, Free Malaysia Today (FMT) and EdgeProp Malaysia reported on 27 and 28 October. The group wants the court to declare Sections 3(1)(b) and (c) of the Act invalid.

Those two sections let the government compulsorily acquire land for purposes that include economic development and residential or commercial projects, as long as statutory requirements are met. KLRA+SD argues the Act gives an owner no formal chance to object or be heard before the acquisition decision is made, which the group says breaches natural justice.

FMT reported the group's legal grounds rest on Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution, which says no person can be deprived of property except in accordance with law, and Article 8(1), which guarantees equality before the law. KLRA+SD says the two sections may let land be taken to benefit private developers under the cover of "public benefit", rather than for a genuine public purpose.

In its statement, carried by both outlets, the association said compulsory acquisition should serve "genuine public purposes or the national interest, rather than facilitate private-sector gains under the guise of public benefit." It said the case is a first step towards a wider national discussion on urban redevelopment, citing concern over forced displacement from what it called aggressive urban development.

Neither outlet reported a hearing date, and neither gives figures for a specific land parcel, compensation amount or number of affected residents; the challenge targets the law itself, not one acquisition. EdgeProp added related context: Minister Nga Kor Ming told Parliament on 20 October that the separate Urban Renewal Bill, which Cabinet decided in January to withdraw for improvements, had not yet been formally withdrawn and remained on the order paper.