CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF S

68A
Land Acquisition Act 1960
Subsequent disposal, etc., of acquired land
not to invalidate acquisition 68A
S. 68A. Where any land has been acquired under this Act, whether before or
after the commencement of this section, no subsequent disposal or use of, or
dealing with, the land, whether by the State Authority or by the Government,
person or corporation on whose behalf the land was acquired, shall invalidate
the acquisition of the land.
Read harmoniously with:
S. 3(1), LAA:
The State Authority may acquire any land which is needed
(a) for any public purpose;
(b) by any person or corporation for any purpose which in the opinion of the
State Authority is beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia or any
part thereof or to the public generally or any class of the public; or
(c) for the purpose of mining or for residential, agricultural, commercial,
industrial or recreational purposes or any combination of such purposes
Art. 8. (1), Federal Constitution:
All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the
law.
Art. 13, Federal Constitution:
Rights to property
(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.
(2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property
without adequate compensation.

Proportionality test in Sivarasa Rasiah:

[A]ll forms of state action-- legislative or executive
measure that infringe a fundamental right must:
(a) have an objective that is sufficiently important to
justify limiting the right in question;
(b) the measures designed by the relevant state
action to meet its objective must have a rational
nexus with that objective; and
(c) the means used by the relevant state action to
infringe the right asserted must be proportionate to
the object it seeks to achieve.
Per Dato Gopal Sri Ram FCJ in Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan
Peguam, Malaysia [2010] 2 MLJ 333, (FC) at para 30 at p
351.
In the circumstances, the purported acquisition may violate:
1. Section 3 purposes. (LAA) [Violating or ultra vires the purpose test.]
2. Art. 8(1) of the Federal Constitution. [Violating perversity, proportionality and
substantive fairness tests housed in Art. 8(1).]
3. Art. 13(1) of the Federal Constitution. (Property or fundamental right)
S. 68A of the LAA is perverse (substantively unfair) and fails the test of
proportionality and therefore unconstitutional. It is a deliberate attempt to deny and
frustrate the rights of the aggrieved landowner, whether under s 3 of the LAA
1960 or the fundamental rights protected by or under the Federal Constitution.
In terms of damages/compensation, Art. 13(2) of the Federal Constitution may
entitle the aggrieved land owner to adequate compensation which may also

include punitive or exemplary damages. (Sagong Tasi and Ors [2005] 6 MLJ
289.)

Please elucidate and develop further the arguments

yourselves.
================================================================================