Ahmad Kasim v Moona Esmail: Adverse Possession, Land Acquisition & Compensation

Ahmad Kasim bin Adam, as administrator of Adam bin Haji Anwar's estate and in his personal capacity, appealed against the compulsory acquisition of land by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and the Attorney-General (AG). The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Judith Prakash JA, heard the appeal. Ahmad claimed his family had acquired title to a portion of the land by adverse possession before the State's acquisition in 1988 and sought to set aside the compensation award made to the paper owners. The court granted declarations that Mr. Adam adversely acquired title to the House (occupying an area of 405.5m2) in 1967 by virtue of his adverse possession and that all rights and title to the House held by the paper owners were extinguished in 1967.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal case regarding adverse possession claim against compulsory land acquisition. The court allowed the appeal in part.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal allowed in partPartial
Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Fu Qijing of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Faith Boey of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Singapore Land AuthorityRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal allowed in partPartial
Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Fu Qijing of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Faith Boey of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ahmad Kasim bin Adam (suing as an Administrator of the estate of Adam bin Haji Anwar and in his own personal capacity)AppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
Moona Esmail Tamby Merican s/o Mohamed GanseRespondentIndividualRights and title to the House extinguishedLost
Ahna Cheena Kana Pana Raman Chitty s/o Koopan ChittyRespondentIndividualRights and title to the House extinguishedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealNo
Judith PrakashJudge of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Khoo Boo JinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Fu QijingAttorney-General’s Chambers
Faith BoeyAttorney-General’s Chambers
Syed Ahmed Jamal ChishtyAC Syed & Partners
A Mohamed HasimAC Syed & Partners

4. Facts

  1. The Land was gazetted for compulsory acquisition in November 1987.
  2. Ahmad Kasim bin Adam claimed his family had lived on the Land since the 1950s.
  3. The family occupied a house on the Land, known as 14 Palm Drive.
  4. The Collector of Land Revenue awarded compensation to the paper owners in 1988.
  5. Ahmad Kasim bin Adam sought a declaration that he had acquired title by adverse possession.
  6. The Land was zoned for "cemetery" use under the 1985 Master Plan.
  7. The family believed the Land was waqaf land.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ahmad Kasim bin Adam (suing as an Administrator of the estate of Adam bin Haji Anwar and in his own personal capacity) v Moona Esmail Tamby Merican s/o Mohamed Ganse and others, Civil Appeal No 4 of 2017, [2019] SGCA 23

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Moona Esmail Tamby Merican purchased the Land.
Moona Esmail Tamby Merican mortgaged the Land to Ahna Cheena Kana Pana Raman Chitty.
Haji Anwar began residing on the Land.
Adam bin Haji Anwar's family occupied the House.
Adam bin Haji Anwar was imprisoned.
Adam bin Haji Anwar was released from prison.
The Land was gazetted for compulsory acquisition.
Notice of acquisition was posted on the Land.
Hearing before the Collector.
The Collector of Land Revenue awarded $18,800 as compensation.
The Collector obtained an Order of Court to pay the compensation into court.
The Land formally vested in the State.
Adam bin Haji Anwar passed away.
Graves on the Land were being exhumed.
Ahmad Kasim bin Adam wrote a letter to the Member of Parliament.
The Singapore Land Authority replied to Ahmad Kasim bin Adam.
The Singapore Land Authority offered Ahmad Kasim bin Adam an ex gratia payment.
The Singapore Land Authority gave Ahmad Kasim bin Adam notice to vacate the Land.
AC Syed & Partners wrote to the Singapore Land Authority alleging breach of natural justice.
The Attorney-General responded to AC Syed & Partners.
The Singapore Land Authority made a final offer to increase the ex gratia payment.
AC Syed & Partners replied to both the Attorney-General and the Singapore Land Authority.
Ahmad Kasim bin Adam redelivered vacant possession of the House to the Singapore Land Authority.
The parties were first heard.
The parties’ applications for leave to adduce their respective expert reports as further evidence were allowed.
The parties were heard again.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Adverse Possession
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Adam had acquired title to the House by adverse possession in 1967.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1994] 2 SLR(R) 467
      • [2001] 1 SLR(R) 811
      • [1995] 1 SLR(R) 279
      • [1998] 1 SLR(R) 195
  2. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court did not make a determination on whether there was a breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Compulsory Acquisition
    • Outcome: The court did not set aside the compulsory acquisition.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Notice Requirements
    • Outcome: The court did not make a determination on whether the notice requirements were breached.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Title by Adverse Possession
  2. Setting Aside of Compensation Award
  3. Re-hearing for Assessment of Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Adverse Possession
  • Breach of Natural Justice

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Law
  • Land Acquisition
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Martin and another v Wama bte BuangCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 467SingaporeCited for the elements of adverse possession: factual possession and intention to possess.
Re Lot 114-69 Mukim 22, Singapore and another actionHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 811SingaporeCited for the principle that the 12-year period for adverse possession can be constituted by the aggregate of separate but continuous periods of adverse possession by different people.
Soon Peng Yam and another (trustees of the Chinese Swimming Club) v Maimon bte AhmadHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 279SingaporeCited for the principle that the adverse possessor need not personally be in occupation of the land to be in factual possession or to have the requisite intention to possess.
Moulmein Development Pte Ltd v Teo Teck Guan and anotherHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 195SingaporeCited for the principle that the intention to possess is not inconsistent with the recognition or belief that somebody else in law has a better title to the land.
Re Lot 114-69 Mukim XXII, SingaporeHigh CourtNo[2003] 1 SLR(R) 773SingaporeCited to distinguish the caretaker's role from exclusive possession in the context of a temple.
Buang bin Jabar v Soon Peng Yam and Chan Ah Kow as trustees of the Chinese Swimming PoolHigh CourtNo[1994] SGHC 113SingaporeCited regarding the land area over which possessory title can be acquired.
Maimon bte Ahmad (administratrix of Sukinah binte Haji Hassan, deceased) v Soon Peng Yam and Chan Ah Kow as trustees of the Chinese Swimming ClubHigh CourtNo[1994] SGHC 117SingaporeCited regarding the land area over which possessory title can be acquired.
Sze To Chun Keung v Kung Kwok Wai David and AnotherPrivy CouncilNo[1997] 1 WLR 1232United KingdomCited regarding the principle that a licensee possesses land on behalf of the licensor.
Brazil v Brazil and othersHigh Court of JusticeNo[2005] EWHC 584 (Ch)England and WalesCited regarding the principle that possession is not adverse where it is pursuant to a licence or permission.
Ng Kim Moi (P) & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus (Negeri Sembilan Township Sdn Bhd & Anor, proposed intervenors)Court of AppealNo[2004] 3 MLJ 301MalaysiaCited for the argument that compensation is a suitable form of relief for a lack of notice or a breach of natural justice in the making of the Award.
Ee Chong Pang & Ors v The Land Administrator of the District of Alor Gajah & AnorCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 MLJ 16MalaysiaCited as an example where an acquisition was quashed for a breach of Art 13(1) of the Malaysian Constitution.
Seah Hong Say (trading as Seah Heng Construction Co) v Housing and Development BoardHigh CourtYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 497SingaporeCited for the principle that judicial review is not a proceeding which is banned by s 53 of the 1987 LAA.
Ng Chee Keong & Ors v Lembaga Letrik Negara & AnorHigh CourtNo[1991] 1 CLJ 567MalaysiaCited to suggest that the appropriate remedy is for the persons interested in the land to seek a quashing order through judicial review proceedings.
Goh Seng Peow & Sons Realty Sdn Bhd v The Collector of Land Revenue, Wilayah PersekutuanHigh CourtNo[1986] 2 MLJ 395MalaysiaCited to suggest that declaratory relief can be obtained in a situation where the government acquired land without knowledge of, or notice to, the persons who were in fact interested in the land.
Lim Cheng Chuan Realty Co Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pulau PinangHigh CourtNo[1999] 4 MLJ 669MalaysiaCited to show a contrary conclusion was reached regarding declaratory relief.
Cocks v Thanet District CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1983] 2 AC 286United KingdomCited for the principle that declarations aim to achieve, through the ordinary originating process, the effect of a quashing order.
Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 1020SingaporeCited for the principle that the time for applications for leave for judicial review may be extended if the delay is accounted for to the satisfaction of the Judge.
Ng Boo Tan v Collector of Land RevenueHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 633SingaporeCited for the principle that Parliament intended s 33 of the 1987 LAA to set out a fully-comprehensive and exhaustive list of matters to be considered in determining compensation for land acquisition.
Trustees of the Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong and Burial Ground v Collector of Land Revenue (Housing and Development Board)High CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 117SingaporeCited for the principle that the existing use of a piece of land refers not to its static condition but to the use to which it is actively being put at the date of acquisition.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Residential Property Act (Act No 18 of 1976)Singapore
Land Titles Act 1993 (No 27 of 1993)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adverse Possession
  • Compulsory Acquisition
  • Waqaf Land
  • Land Acquisition Act
  • Collector of Land Revenue
  • Paper Owners
  • Notice of Acquisition
  • Ex Gratia Payment

15.2 Keywords

  • Land
  • Acquisition
  • Adverse Possession
  • Compensation
  • Singapore
  • Property
  • Real Estate

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Adverse Possession95
Land Law90
Property Law90
Compulsory Acquisition85
Eminent Domain70
Administrative Law60
Civil Procedure30

16. Subjects

  • Land Acquisition
  • Adverse Possession
  • Real Estate Law
  • Administrative Law