Isu 'Public Purpose' atau Maksud Awam

Saya ada menerima pertanyaan dari seseorang mengenai tajuk pewartaan pengambilan tanah sama ada ianya memenuhi kehendak seksyen 3(1)(a) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960.  Tajuk warta seksyen 8 tersebut adalah seperti berikut:

''Pengambilan Tanah Bagi Maksud Awam iaitu Pembesaran Kawasan Masjid''

Persoalannya, adakah pengambilan seperti tajuk di atas akan diisytiharkan tidak menepati maksud "Public Purpose" sepertimana yang diputuskan oleh YA Hakim Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Tanah Merah & anor [2015] 6 CLJ 1

Pandangan: 

Perkataan 'Maksud Awam' ada disebut dibawah seksyen 3(1)(a) Akta Pengambilan Tanah. Maksud perkataan tersebut telahpun dibincangkan dengan mendalam dalam paparan saya sebelum ini. Perkara ini timbul kembali apabila keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes di atas.

Cuba kita lihat terlebih dahulu fakta kes di atas dan keputusan yang telah dibuat

The appellant's lands (Kuala Lumpur Kepong) was acquired by a government gazette issued on 18 July 2013 through the Government Gazette No. 1307 dated 18 June 2013. The purpose was said to be public purpose. The purpose for the acquisition was stated as follows:

'Pengambilan Balik Tanah Bagi Maksud Tapak Penempatan Rumah Pekerja Ladang Kerilla Di Atas Sebahagian Tanah Lot 2458, GRN 19801, Mukim Kuala Paku, Jajahan Tanah Merah'

Pengambilan tersebut dibuat apabila 'The Malaysian Indian Congress, Division of Tanah Merah' wrote to the Ministry of Human Resources requesting to look into the housing and accommodation affairs of the retired estate workers of an estate known as "Kerilla Estate'

TANAH YANG TERLIBAT ADALAH SEBAHAGIAN DARIPADA LADANG ITU SENDIRI

Diantara Penghakiman:

[5]    What is important to note is that the view expressed by the High Court is S.Kulasingam's that "to see whether the purpose serves the general interest of the community" has been the foundation for many of subsequent judgments which had dealt with the meaning of "public purpose". That is to say 'general interest of the community" necessarily means the public and not a group of persons. For example, land may not be acquired to give to a group of squatters but land may be acquired to give housing benefits to squatters as a whole. When land is acquired for a group of squatters is cannot be said to be for 'public purpose' from the definition gleaned from a number of cases.

[7]     Similar sentimens were expressed by Lee Swee Seng JC (as he then was) in the case of Wang Su Sing v Hj Zamari Hj Mohd Ramli & Ors [2014] 2 CLJ 257, where on the facts is was held:

        (2)  A noble purpose does not necessarily convert into "public purpose" and public benefit cannot be equated to a 'public purpose'. The class of person being squatters on the subject land could not be for 'public purpose' as it only benefited that class of person. Thus, the state, by legitimissing the accupation of thr subject land by the squatters to that of lawful occupiers could only be said to have benefitted tangibly the squatters already on the subject land and not the public as a whole, irrespective of the size of the group of people

Dalam kes ini oleh kerana pengambilan tanah dibuat hanya untuk menyediakan perumahan bagi pekerja ladang Kerilla Estate yang bersara adalah tidak menepati maksud public purpose tersebut. Sebaliknya jika pengambilan tersebut dibuat untuk penempatan bekas pekerja ladang dan orang awam secara umum, maka ianya menepati maksud "public purpose" Ini dapat dilihat dengan jelas dalam penghakiman di atas.

Bagi persoalan yang ditanya kepada saya iaitu "Pengambilan Tanah bagi Maksud Awam iaitu Pembesaran Kawasan/ Masjid" PADA PANDANGAN SAYA IANYA MENEPATI MAKSUD 'PUBLIC PURPOSE" ITU SENDIRI KERANA MASJID DIGUNAKAN OLEH SEMUA PENGANUT ISLAM SECARA UMUM TIDAK KIRA BANGSA DAN BUKAN UNTUK SATU SATU PIHAK SAHAJA