Ahmad Kasim v Singapore Land Authority: Judicial Review of Land Acquisition Compensation

In Ahmad Kasim bin Adam (suing as administrator of the estate of Adam bin Haji Anwar, deceased) v Singapore Land Authority and others, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mr. Ahmad Kasim's application for leave to seek judicial review of the compulsory acquisition of land in 1987. Mr. Ahmad sought to quash the acquisition and the compensation awarded, claiming breaches of natural justice and improper purpose. The court, presided over by Audrey Lim J, found the application was filed out of time, the delay was not adequately explained, and the claims lacked merit. The court also noted that the applicant had an alternative remedy available through a fresh inquiry by the Collector of Land Revenue.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Administrative

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ahmad Kasim sought judicial review of a 1987 land acquisition. The court dismissed the application due to delay and lack of merit.

1.7 Decision Date

3 May 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore	Respondent	Government Agency	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Teo Meng Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jocelyn of Attorney-General’s Chambers Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Fu Qijing of Attorney-General’s Chambers Enoch Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Singapore Land Authority	Respondent	Government Agency	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Teo Meng Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jocelyn of Attorney-General’s Chambers Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Fu Qijing of Attorney-General’s Chambers Enoch Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Collector of Land Revenue	Respondent	Government Agency	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Teo Meng Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jocelyn of Attorney-General’s Chambers Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Fu Qijing of Attorney-General’s Chambers Enoch Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ahmad Kasim bin Adam (suing as Administrator of the Estate of Adam bin Haji Anwar, deceased)	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Thara Rubini Gopalan of TSMP Law Corporation Koh Li Qun of TSMP Law Corporation Kelvin of TSMP Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Audrey Lim	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Teo Meng Hui	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jocelyn	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Khoo Boo Jin	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Fu Qijing	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Enoch Wong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Thara Rubini Gopalan	TSMP Law Corporation
Koh Li Qun	TSMP Law Corporation
Kelvin	TSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

The Land was a Muslim cemetery compulsorily acquired by the State in 1987.
Mr. Ahmad sought to quash the Acquisition and the compensation awarded.
Mr. Adam's family resided on the Land in a house built around 1955.
Mr. Ahmad claimed he was unaware of the Acquisition until 2009.
SLA offered ex gratia payments to Mr. Ahmad, which he rejected.
Mr. Ahmad commenced Originating Summons No 397 of 2015, which was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found that Mr. Adam had adversely acquired title to the House and the Plot.

5. Formal Citations

Ahmad Kasim bin Adam (suing as administrator of the estate of Adam bin Haji Anwar, deceased) v Singapore Land Authority and others, Originating Summons No 881 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 90

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1987-11-27	Land compulsorily acquired by the State.
1987-11-27	Declaration published in the Government Gazette Extraordinary.
1988-01-07	Notices of Acquisition issued.
1988-01-22	Land Office Notice posted on the Land.
1988-03-03	Date for persons interested to appear at the Land Office.
1988-03-18	Collector awarded compensation for the Acquisition.
1988-06-20	Sum paid into court pursuant to a court order.
1988-09-12	Land vested in the State.
1988-09-01	Land Office’s Notice of Taking Possession posted on the Land.
1997-05-01	Mr. Adam passed away.
2009-03-01	Mr. Ahmad noticed graves being exhumed.
2009-01-01	Cemetery exhumed.
2010-02-05	Mr. Ahmad wrote a letter to a Member of Parliament.
2010-02-11	SLA received the MP Letter.
2012-07-09	SLA replied to Mr. Ahmad.
2012-10-17	SLA offered an ex gratia payment to Mr. Ahmad.
2012-11-20	SLA offered an ex gratia payment to Mr. Ahmad.
2013-11-22	SLA reiterated that Mr. Ahmad was not entitled to remain on the Land.
2014-05-26	SLA informed Mr. Ahmad that he was in unlawful occupation of the Land.
2014-07-02	SLA informed Mr. Ahmad that it could not accede to his requests.
2014-07-31	Mr. Ahmad’s lawyers informed SLA that the Acquisition was carried out in breach of natural justice.
2014-09-16	SLA responded to re-open its offer of an ex gratia payment.
2014-09-17	AGC responded to state the government’s position.
2014-09-29	SLA requested Mr. Ahmad’s cooperation to vacate the Land.
2014-10-03	Mr. Ahmad replied to AGC and SLA.
2014-01-01	SLA issued TOLs to Mr. Ahmad.
2015-04-30	Mr. Ahmad commenced Originating Summons No 397 of 2015.
2016-06-30	Mr. Ahmad delivered vacant possession of the House to SLA.
2016-07-19	Third TOL expired.
2019-04-29	AGC wrote to Mr. Ahmad’s lawyers.
2019-07-10	Mr. Ahmad filed OS 881.
2019-08-15	AGC wrote to Mr. Ahmad.
2019-11-18	First hearing before the judge.
2020-03-27	Judgment reserved.
2020-05-05	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Leave to Commence Judicial Review
- Outcome: Leave was not granted due to the applicant's failure to account for the delay in filing the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Delay in application
  - Failure to account for delay
  - Lack of bona fides
Judicial Review of Land Acquisition
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of bad faith or improper purpose in the acquisition, and that the Collector had fulfilled the notice requirements.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of natural justice
  - Improper purpose of acquisition
  - Failure to provide notice
Compensation for Land Acquisition
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant had an alternative remedy available through a fresh inquiry by the Collector of Land Revenue and declined to mandate a specific method of calculating compensation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Assessment of compensation
  - Ex gratia payment
  - Supplementary award

8. Remedies Sought

Quashing Order
Mandatory Order
Fresh Inquiry for Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

Judicial Review
Breach of Natural Justice

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Administrative Law
Real Estate Law

11. Industries

Government

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 568	Singapore	Cited regarding the time limit for applications for quashing orders and the onus on the applicant to account for delay.
UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 94	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that an application for a mandatory order should be made without undue delay.
Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1020	Singapore	Cited regarding the time limit for applications for mandatory orders and the need for satisfactory explanation for delay.
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	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 1185	Singapore	Extensively cited for its findings on adverse possession, breach of natural justice, and remedies available to the applicant.
Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 196	Singapore	Cited regarding the burden on the applicant to show facts warranting the court's discretion.
Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 115	Singapore	Cited regarding the need for full explanation of delay in applications.
Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1100	Singapore	Cited regarding ignorance not being a sufficient explanation for delay in bringing judicial review proceedings.
Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chee Fun Gee and others	High Court	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 586	Singapore	Cited regarding the conditions necessary for leave to be granted to commence judicial review proceedings.
Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 844	Singapore	Cited regarding bare assertions without credible basis not satisfying the threshold for judicial review.
AXY and others v Comptroller of Income Tax	High Court	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 1069	Singapore	Cited regarding the dismissal of unmeritorious judicial review applications.
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1189	Singapore	Cited regarding the two specific rules which encapsulate the rules of natural justice.
Re Lot 114-69 Mukin XXII, Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 773	Singapore	Cited regarding the definition of “owner” under s 2 of the Property Tax Act.
Algemene Bank Nederland NV v Tan Chin Tiong and another	High Court	Yes	[1985–1986] SLR(R) 1154	Singapore	Cited regarding the definition of “owner” under s 2 of the Property Tax Act.
Laxmanrao Kristrao Jahagirdar v The Provincial Government of Bombay	Bombay High Court	Yes	(1950) 52 BomLR 316	India	Cited regarding the distinction between occupiers of land and persons interested in the land.
Robinson & Co Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue	Privy Council (on appeal from Singapore)	Yes	[1979–1980] SLR(R) 483	Singapore	Cited regarding the purpose of a notice of acquisition under s 8 of the LAA 1987.
Lim Kim Som v Sheriffa Taibah bte Abdul Rahman	High Court	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR(R) 233	Singapore	Cited regarding the purpose of a notice of acquisition under s 8 of the LAA 1987.
Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 507	Singapore	Cited regarding the prevention of economic windfalls as a key policy underlying the LAA 1987.
Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment Authority	High Court	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 92	Singapore	Cited regarding the exhaustion of alternative remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the court.
Novelty Dept Store Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 766	Singapore	Cited regarding the issuing of a supplementary award under the land acquisition regime.
Thio Keng Poon v Thio Syn Pyn and others and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 143	Singapore	Cited regarding the court not acting in vain.
Malloch v Aberdeen Corp	House of Lords	Yes	[1971] 1 WLR 1578	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the court not acting in vain.
Seah Hong Say (trading as Seah Heng Construction Co) v Housing and Development Board	High Court	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 497	Singapore	Cited regarding the legal entitlement to an ex gratia payment.
Ng Boo Tan v Collector of Land Revenue	High Court	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 633	Singapore	Cited regarding the matters that the Collector is to consider when assessing the amount of compensation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 53 r 1(6)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Property Tax Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Land Acquisition
Judicial Review
Natural Justice
Compensation
Ex Gratia Payment
Adverse Possession
Quashing Order
Mandatory Order

15.2 Keywords

Land Acquisition
Judicial Review
Compensation
Singapore
Administrative Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Judicial Review	95
Administrative Law	90
Compulsory Land Acquisition	85
Land Law	70
Property Law	50

16. Subjects

Land Law
Administrative Law
Civil Procedure