GEMBIRA.... Peguam Datuk Kong Hong Ming bersama Puan Rambilin dan para penyokong yang datang dari pelbagai daerah..
Oleh : GALUS AHTOI
AKHIRNYA setelah lebih 15 tahun berjuang di mahkamah, Rambilin Bte Ambit dari Kg. Salimpodon, Pitas disahkan menjadi pemilik sah tanah 'Adat'nya.
Pagi kelmarin, 22 Mac 2012, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu Dato’ Abdul Rahman Sebli telah menerima Rayuan pihak Plantif (Rambilin) untuk menggugurkan keputusan Pengarah Jabatan Tanah dan Ukur Sabah yang tidak memberi kelayakan kepada Puan Rambilin untuk menjadi pemilik sah ke atas Tanah Adatnya…
Tahniah kepada Peguam Datuk Kong Hong Ming dan Puan Rambilin kerana kemenangan ini memberi nafas baru kepada perjuangan yang hampir nazak untuk seluruh warga orang asal/penduduk tempatan Sabah!
Inilah hakikat pentadbiran Jabatan Tanah dan Ukur Sabah (JTU); mungkin atas arahan Pemerintah/Kerajaan BN! Adakah selepas ini JTU masih tidak berpuas hati atau hormat dengan keputusan Mahkamah?
Sebelum ini pihak Mahkamah telah mengesahkan bahawa Rambilin berhak ke atas tanah adatnya, namun pada Disember 2011, Pengarah Jabatan Tanah dan Ukur Sabah masih mengatakan bahawa Rambilin tiada kelayakan mendapatkan tanah tersebut atas asas 'Tanah Adat '(NCR).
Diharap Pengarah JTU, sedar diri dan mengakui bahawa orang kampung adalah manusia juga yang perlu hidup bergantung kepada tanah adatnya!
Kepada semua Penolong Pemungut Hasil Tanah (PPHT) dan Pengarah JTU, keselamatan Tanah Adat (NCR) adalah tanggungjawab anda! Jangan khianati amanah rakyat kepada anda. PPHT mesti bertanggungjawab dan wajib dipersalahkan di atas kehilangan semua tanah adat dan kesengsaraan orang miskin.
PPHT sudah dipertanggung jawabkan sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam seksyen 14, Ordinan Tanah Sabah Bab 68.
Berikut Penghakiman Penuh Hakim Kes Rambilin
MALAYSIA
IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU
ORIGINATING MOTION NO. BKI-25-1/1 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to the High Court under section 41 of Land Ordinance (Cap 68) and Order 55 rule 13 of Rules of the High Court 1980
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to the High Court against the decision of the 2nd Respondent as Director of Lands and Surveys, Sabah given on 20th of December 2011 in Director Land Enquiry (Appeal) No.47 of 2007
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to the 2nd Respondent as Director of Lands and Surveys Sabah against the decision of the 3rd Respondent as Assistant Collector of Land Revenues of Pitas given on 5th of November 2007 in Pitas PPHT Land Enquiry No.3 of 2000.
IN THE MATTER OF an application of the Plaintiff to the 3rd Respondent as Assistant Collector of Land Revenues Pitas in Pitas PPHT Land Enquiry No. 3 of 2000 pursuant to sections 13, 14 and 15 of Land Ordinance (Cap 68) and in respect of Land Application Nos.89230296 and 96230318 in the District of Pitas.
IN THE MATTER of the Judgment of the High Court given on 9th of July 2007 in Civil Suit No.K22-71 of 2000 and Application for Judicial Review No.JR-K25-02 of 2002 and JR-K24-240 of 2002
IN THE MATTER OF relevant provisions of Land Ordinance (Cap 68) under sections 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 41, 65, 66 of Land Ordinance (Cap 68) and Rule 8 of Land Rules, 1930
BETWEEN
RAMBILIN BTE AMBIT PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
AND
MAGUDAR BIN AMBIT 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF LANDS & SURVEYS, SABAH 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF LAND REVENUES
PITAS 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION
My Lord, this appeal reflects the reluctance and arbitrary refusal of the land administrators to respect and give effect to the law and the decisions of the Courts bordering contempt of Court. At the High Court, three (3) matters were heard together in a trial. These are Suit No.K22-71 of 2000 between the Plaintiff (“Rambilin”) and Ruddy Bin Awah (“the Civil Suit”) and two Application for Judicial Review No.JR-K25-02 of 2002 and JR-K24-240 of 2002 between Rambilin as applicant and the 2nd and 3rd Defendant as respondents (“the Judicial Review”).
After the trial, Mr Justice Datuk Ian Chin delivered his Judgment on 09.07.2007 (“the Judgment”) and ruled that Rambilin is entitled to possession of the land and Ruddy to deliver vacant possession to her.
The learned Judge also awarded damages and mense profit to Rambilin since 1996. In compliance with the Judgment, the 3rd Defendant (“ACLR”) delivered his decision in Pitas ACLR Land Enquiry LE.3/2000 between Rambilin and the 1st Defendant (“Magudar”) dismissing Rambilin’s application in respect of her claim for native customary right (“NCR”) to the said land and her dispute to the overlapping land applications for the said land that she had occupied and cultivated since 1982.
ACLR’s ground of dismissal was that Rambilin did not seek the permission of the government to enter State land (“Ground 1”), and hence, she could not establish and claim NCR in the said land. In his decision, however, ACLR accepted and agreed the said land was State land. Rambilin appealed to the 2nd Defendant as Director of Lands & Surveys (“the Director”) against ACLR’s decision.
On 20.12.2011, the Director dismissed Rambilin’s appeal on the ground that the said land that she had occupied and cultivated since 1982 was not State land (“Ground 2”), and hence, she could not establish NCR over the said land. In dismissing Rambilin’s appeal, the Director wrongly relied on a scheme and the rulings of the Pitas Native Court involving Magudar and others which the High Court had already found and decided in the Judgment to be a fraudulent plot and collusion to defeat Rambilin’s interest in the said land.
Hence, Rambilin now appealed to the High Court under section 41 of Land Ordinance. All the parties including ACLR as originating tribunal in Land Enquiry No.LE.3/2000 agreed and accepted that the said land was State land whereas the Director, as appellate tribunal, overruled Ground 1 but instead decided that the said land was not State land.
The issue that the said land was State land was never doubted and was never raised or argued by the parties in Land Enquiry No. LE 3/2000 before ACLR. In this appeal, it is submitted that the decision of the Director was wrong in law and in fact on the grounds, inter alia, that the issue in Ground 2 was wholly irrelevant, baseless and misconceived since it was an agreed fact as agreed by the Director and ACLR themselves in Judicial Review that the said land was State land.
Further, the decisions of the High Court made in the Judgment on the issue in Ground 2 were binding on the Director. Therefore, the decision of the Director ought to be set aside on the grounds as set out in the Notice of Originating Motion. Accordingly, Rambilin prays for an order in terms of this appeal.
This morning on 22.03.2012, Mr Justice Dato Abdul Rahman Sebli of Kota Kinabalu allowed Rambilin’s application with costs to the 1st Defendant on terms as follows: -
(1) An Order that the decision of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent given on 20th pf December 2011 in Director Land Enquiry (Appeal) No. 47 of 2007 affirming the decision of the 3rd Defendant/Respondent of 5th of November 2007 in Pitas PPHT Land Enquiry No.3 of 2000 is set-aside;
(2) An Order that the Plaintiff’s /Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent of 20th of December 2011 in Director Land Enquiry (Appeal) No.47 of 2007 is allowed upon terms as follows:-
(a) That the Plaintiff/Appellant has acquired native customary rights to the land measuring 15 acres situate at Kampung Salimpodon in the District of Pitas as comprised in Land Application No.89230296;
(b) That the Plaintiff/Appellant is entitled to be issued with the appropriate and necessary document of title to the land in respect of the Plaintiff/Appellant’s Land Application No.89230296;
(c) That the land application of the 1st defendant/Respondent in Land Application No.96230318 shall be cancelled and nullified;
(3) An Order that the 2nd and 3rd Defendant/Respondent shall give effect to the Order granted in paragraphs (1) and (2) (a), (b) and (c) above;
(4) An Order that the 1st Defendant/Respondent shall pay the costs to the Plaintiff/Appellant
No comments:
Post a Comment