Kampung Buah Pala villagers insist on being represented by a lawyer who appears not to know the difference between "alienation of state land" and "transfer of alienated land" in the context of the National Land Code (NLC).

Darshan Singh Khaira has been reported, more recently in the Star newspaper, to have claimed that "the transfer of land title from the state government to Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang Bhd" may be fraudulent and that "the state government can invoke Section 320 of the NLC (registrar's caveat) to set aside the transfer of land title from the state government to Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang Bhd".

From the various statements issued so far it is obvious that Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang Bhd obtained the title to the land on which Kampung Buah Pala is situated by a act of alienation of state land by the state government, and not by a transfer of title.

A transfer of land title can only happen in respect of alienated land. Until the day the land title was registered to be issued to Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang Bhd, the said land was state land and not alienated land. The fact that the Kampung Buah Pala villagers had been paying annual TOL fees further indicates that the land was state land.

Therefore Kampung Buah Pala villagers' lawyer Darshan Singh Khaira, actually meant "fraudulent alienation of state land" when he used the term "fraudulent land transfer".

Let us now examine the claim of "fraud" in the "alienation of state land" to Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang Bhd (KPKPP). Many years ago, KPKPP applied to the previous state authority to be alienated the state land.

The state authority under the previous government approved the application and prescribed a ridiculously low premium. The premium may be ridiculously low but so far no one has cited any law prohibiting the state authority from prescribing a ridiculously low premium when alienating state land.

The premium and all other fees that was demanded together with the approval letter was paid in full to the state authority under the present state government and the land title was subsequently registered and issued to KPKPP, the body to which the alienation was approved. I do not see any fraud. Maybe it is because I am not a lawyer that I do not see what is not there.

I can only see fraud if one or more events such as the following had occurred:

  • The state authority never met to approve the state land to KPKPP and an approval letter was a forged.
  • KPKPP's company M & A specifically prohibits purchasing and owning landed property and a doctored copy of the M & A that did not show this article was submitted to the land office together with the application for state land.
  • Application was properly submitted and approval was properly given. However the land title was registered and issued without full payment of the prescribed premium and all other statutory fees.
None of the above acts or any other fraudulent acts have been cited to have occurred. So far the only claim of fraud is the below market value premium set by the previous state authority. I cannot see how the setting of a below-market value premium can be a cause for cancellation of the registered land title.

If this reason can be used as justification to cancel the registered title, then tens of thousands of other land titles are in danger of being canceled. These are the land titles mostly for housing plots that have been alienated mostly to civil servants and politicians over the last 40-50 years at below market value premium.

As a further illustration, let's say I go shopping for expensive jewelry. I see a piece which I liked marked for sale for RM100,000 and asked the sales staff for a discount without pointing a gun at his head or a knife at his throat. The staff, perhaps because he was angry with his boss decided to do the sale against his company's policy, told me it was my lucky day and offered to sell the jewelry to me with a 90% discount for RM10,000.

I paid the agreed sales price of RM10,000 and obtained an official receipt for full and final payment. When his boss found out about the sale later has he got a legal right to demand that I return the jewelry for a full refund? As a layman, I don't think so but I won't be surprised if a lawyer claims otherwise.