Malaysian Property Law

Judicial Review as a Supervisory Mechanism over Compulsory Land Acquisition Decisions

1. Case Study

Case Study: Challenging the Land Administrator’s Exercise of Compulsory Acquisition Powers

Background

Mr. Rahman owns a parcel of land that becomes subject to compulsory acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The Land Administrator exercises statutory functions in relation to the acquisition.

Mr. Rahman is dissatisfied with certain decisions made during the acquisition proceedings.

He initially assumes that he can appeal against every decision of the Land Administrator.

However, the statutory framework does not confer a general right of appeal against every decision made by the Land Administrator.

Mr. Rahman must therefore determine what legal mechanism is available if he believes that the acquisition authority has acted unlawfully.

Absence of a General Right of Appeal

A distinction must be drawn between an appeal and judicial review.

An appeal ordinarily permits a higher court or tribunal to reconsider a decision according to the appellate jurisdiction conferred by law.

A general right of appeal does not automatically arise merely because a person is dissatisfied with a decision made by the Land Administrator.

Any right of appeal or statutory challenge must come from the legal framework governing the particular decision.

Judicial Review as a Supervisory Remedy

Mr. Rahman then considers judicial review.

Judicial review is an important procedural mechanism available to the High Court for supervising the exercise of public power.

Its central purpose is not simply to decide whether the court would have reached a better decision.

Rather, judicial review examines whether the public decision-maker has acted lawfully and within the powers conferred by statute.

The High Court’s Supervisory Role

Through judicial review, the High Court may examine whether the Land Administrator or another public authority has remained within the statutory framework of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The court may intervene where the authority acts beyond its statutory powers.

The court may also intervene where statutory power has been abused.

It may restrain a decision-maker from continuing to act unlawfully.

It may also quash a decision where the applicable requirements for judicial intervention are satisfied.

Judicial Review and Abuse of Power

Mr. Rahman alleges that the Land Administrator has used the acquisition process for a purpose not contemplated by the Act.

He further alleges that irrelevant matters were considered.

He claims that relevant matters were ignored.

Alternatively, he argues that the acquisition power has been exercised in bad faith.

These allegations concern the legality of the decision-making process rather than merely dissatisfaction with the result.

They therefore fall within the type of questions for which judicial review may be relevant.

Judicial Review and Compensation

Mr. Rahman is also dissatisfied with the compensation awarded for his land.

This requires an important distinction.

Compensation disputes may be challenged through the procedures provided by the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Where the complaint concerns the amount of compensation, the appropriate statutory reference or compensation procedure should ordinarily be used.

Judicial review, by contrast, is principally concerned with the legality of the decision-making process.

Therefore, judicial review should not be treated as an ordinary substitute for the statutory mechanism for obtaining a higher compensation assessment.

However, where the compensation process itself is affected by excess of jurisdiction, abuse of power, procedural illegality or another recognised public-law defect, judicial review may become relevant to the legality of that process.

Judicial Review as a Check upon Executive Power

Judicial review also performs a wider constitutional function.

Public authorities exercise substantial governmental powers.

Compulsory acquisition is particularly significant because it allows the State to interfere directly with private property rights.

Judicial review therefore operates as an important mechanism for preventing executive excess and encroachment.

It ensures that administrative authorities do not treat statutory power as unlimited authority.

Relationship with the Separation of Powers

The supervisory role of the courts is closely connected with the broader constitutional idea of separation of powers.

The executive administers and implements legislation.

The legislature creates statutory powers.

The judiciary determines whether those powers have been exercised according to law.

Judicial review therefore enables the courts to supervise the legality of executive and administrative decision-making without simply taking over the administrative function itself.

English Legal Origins

The historical development of judicial review is closely associated with English public-law jurisprudence.

Malaysian administrative law inherited important concepts relating to:

certiorari;

mandamus;

prohibition;

ultra vires;

and

judicial supervision of inferior tribunals and public authorities.

These principles subsequently developed within Malaysia’s own constitutional and statutory framework.

The Central Conflict

The dispute therefore raises several important questions:

What remedy is available where there is no general right of appeal against a decision of the Land Administrator?

What is the purpose of judicial review in compulsory acquisition proceedings?

Can judicial review be used merely because a landowner disagrees with compensation?

How does the High Court use judicial review to prevent excess or abuse of statutory power?

What is the relationship between judicial review and the doctrine of separation of powers?

2. Questions and Answers with Case Examples

Question 1: Is there a general right of appeal against every decision of the Land Administrator?

Answer

No.

A person affected by compulsory acquisition does not automatically possess a general right of appeal against every decision made by the Land Administrator.

Any appellate or statutory remedy must arise from the legal framework applicable to the particular decision.

Where no appeal exists, this does not necessarily mean that unlawful administrative conduct is completely beyond judicial supervision.

Judicial review may still be available where a recognised public-law ground is established.

Case Example

Issue

Whether Mr. Rahman may automatically appeal every decision made by the Land Administrator.

Rule

A right of appeal must be conferred by law and cannot simply be assumed.

Application

The Land Administrator makes a decision under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Mr. Rahman disagrees with it but cannot identify any provision granting a general appeal.

Conclusion

He cannot create a right of appeal merely from dissatisfaction with the decision.

He must determine whether another statutory procedure or judicial review is legally available.

Question 2: What is judicial review?

Answer

Judicial review is a procedural mechanism through which the High Court supervises the legality of decisions made by public authorities and similar statutory bodies.

Its primary concern is whether the decision-maker acted within the powers granted by law.

It is therefore a mechanism for controlling the decision-making process rather than merely reconsidering the merits of the decision.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the High Court can examine an allegation that a Land Administrator exercised power outside the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Rule

Judicial review permits the High Court to supervise whether public authorities remain within their lawful statutory powers.

Application

Mr. Lee alleges that the Land Administrator used a statutory power for a purpose not authorised by the Act.

Conclusion

The allegation raises a question suitable for judicial review because it concerns the legality of public power.

Question 3: Why is judicial review described as a potent and effective procedural device?

Answer

Judicial review is powerful because it enables the High Court to supervise public decision-makers and ensure that statutory authority is not misused.

The court may intervene before unlawful administrative action becomes irreversible.

It may also invalidate an unlawful decision after it has been made, depending upon the circumstances and remedy sought.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a landowner must simply accept an acquisition decision allegedly made outside statutory powers.

Rule

Public authorities remain subject to judicial supervision.

Application

An acquiring authority clearly exceeds the powers conferred by the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The affected owner applies for judicial review.

Conclusion

Judicial review provides an effective procedural mechanism through which the High Court may control the unlawful exercise of statutory authority.

Question 4: What does the High Court supervise in judicial review proceedings?

Answer

The High Court principally supervises the lawfulness of the decision-making process.

It may consider whether the decision-maker:

possessed statutory power;

acted within the scope of that power;

used the power for a proper purpose;

considered legally relevant matters;

avoided irrelevant considerations;

complied with applicable procedural requirements;

and

avoided abuse of power.

Case Example

Issue

Whether judicial review allows the High Court simply to choose a better site for a public project.

Rule

Judicial review concerns legality rather than ordinary administrative merits.

Application

The State Authority lawfully selects Site A for a project.

The landowner believes Site B would have been economically better.

No illegality is established.

Conclusion

The court should not use judicial review merely to substitute its own planning preference.

Question 5: What does it mean to act in excess of power?

Answer

A public authority acts in excess of power where it goes beyond the legal authority granted by the relevant statute.

This may amount to ultra vires action.

The decision-maker must remain within the boundaries imposed by the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and other applicable law.

Case Example

Issue

Whether an acquiring authority may use compulsory acquisition powers for a purpose the Act does not authorise.

Rule

Statutory powers must be exercised only within their lawful scope.

Application

The authority relies upon the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire land for an objective entirely outside the statutory purposes.

Conclusion

The decision may be judicially reviewed as an excess of statutory power.

Question 6: What does abuse of power mean?

Answer

Abuse of power occurs where an authority possesses a statutory power but exercises it improperly.

The authority may technically possess the power yet misuse it for a legally impermissible reason.

Examples may include:

mala fide;

improper purpose;

reliance upon irrelevant considerations;

failure to consider relevant matters;

or

acting under improper external influence.

Case Example

Issue

Whether lawful acquisition power may be used to punish a landowner.

Rule

A statutory power must be used for the purpose for which it was legally conferred.

Application

The authority possesses a power to acquire land for development.

However, it selects Mr. Rahman’s property only because an influential politician wants to retaliate against him.

Conclusion

The authority may have abused its statutory power, making judicial review potentially available.

Question 7: Can judicial review restrain a public authority before an unlawful action is completed?

Answer

Potentially, yes.

One important function of judicial review is to prevent public decision-makers from continuing to act outside their lawful authority.

The precise remedy depends upon the circumstances and applicable procedural requirements.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the High Court must wait until an unlawful acquisition process is fully completed.

Rule

Public-law remedies may, where legally appropriate, restrain threatened or continuing excess of statutory power.

Application

An authority announces that it will proceed under a power that plainly does not apply to the proposed acquisition.

The affected owner seeks judicial intervention before irreversible steps are taken.

Conclusion

The High Court may consider an appropriate public-law remedy if the legal requirements for intervention are satisfied.

Question 8: Is judicial review the same as an appeal?

Answer

No.

An appeal and judicial review perform different functions.

An appeal ordinarily permits reconsideration of the correctness of the decision within the scope granted by the relevant appellate jurisdiction.

Judicial review ordinarily examines whether the decision-maker acted lawfully.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a landowner may convert every disagreement with an acquisition decision into judicial review.

Rule

Judicial review is not a general substitute for an appeal.

Application

Mr. Kumar simply thinks the Land Administrator made the wrong factual judgment.

He alleges no excess of power, bad faith or procedural illegality.

Conclusion

His complaint may concern merits rather than judicial review.

Question 9: Can judicial review be used to obtain a higher amount of compensation merely because the owner is dissatisfied?

Answer

Judicial review should not ordinarily be used merely to obtain a reconsideration of the quantum of compensation.

The Land Acquisition Act 1960 provides statutory procedures through which an interested person dissatisfied with compensation may seek determination of that issue.

The distinction is important.

A disagreement with the amount awarded concerns the substantive valuation of compensation.

An allegation that the compensation decision-making process was affected by illegality concerns judicial review.

Case Example

Issue

Whether Mr. Rahman can seek judicial review simply because he thinks his land is worth RM10 million rather than RM7 million.

Rule

Ordinary compensation disputes should generally follow the statutory compensation mechanism.

Application

Mr. Rahman raises no allegation of procedural illegality or excess of jurisdiction.

He simply disagrees with the valuation figure.

Conclusion

The appropriate route is ordinarily the statutory mechanism for challenging compensation rather than judicial review.

Question 10: When might judicial review be relevant to a compensation decision?

Answer

Judicial review may become relevant where the complaint concerns the legality of the compensation decision-making process.

For example, the decision-maker may have acted without jurisdiction.

The authority may have relied upon an irrelevant factor.

It may have denied an applicable procedural right.

It may have acted in bad faith.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a compensation-related decision can be reviewed where the decision-maker deliberately applies a legally irrelevant factor.

Rule

Judicial review may examine public-law illegality even where the underlying subject matter involves compensation.

Application

The authority deliberately reduces compensation because the owner previously criticised the Government.

Conclusion

The complaint concerns abuse of power, not merely disagreement with valuation, and may therefore raise a judicial review issue.

Question 11: How does judicial review prevent executive excess?

Answer

Judicial review ensures that executive and administrative authorities do not exercise statutory powers beyond their lawful limits.

It provides institutional supervision by the courts.

The executive therefore cannot lawfully treat broad administrative discretion as unlimited authority.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the executive is the final judge of the scope of its own acquisition powers.

Rule

The courts retain the responsibility of determining whether statutory power has been exercised within legal limits.

Application

The State Authority argues that its own interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 cannot be questioned.

Conclusion

Judicial review enables the High Court to determine whether that interpretation and exercise of power are legally sustainable.

Question 12: What is meant by executive encroachment?

Answer

Executive encroachment refers to governmental action that goes beyond the proper legal limits of executive authority and interferes unlawfully with protected rights, interests or institutional boundaries.

In land acquisition, the concern is particularly significant because compulsory powers allow the State to interfere directly with private property.

Case Example

Issue

Whether compulsory acquisition can become an instrument of executive overreach.

Rule

Acquisition powers must remain within statutory and constitutional limits.

Application

The Government invokes acquisition legislation even though the real objective falls outside the statutory framework.

Conclusion

Judicial review provides a means of checking such executive encroachment.

Question 13: How is judicial review related to the separation of powers?

Answer

Judicial review reflects the broader principle that different institutions of government exercise different constitutional functions.

The legislature creates legal powers.

The executive administers and exercises those powers.

The judiciary interprets the law and supervises whether governmental action remains within legal limits.

Judicial review therefore protects the boundaries of lawful governmental power.

Case Example

Issue

Whether judicial review means that judges take over the functions of the Land Administrator.

Rule

Judicial review supervises legality without ordinarily replacing lawful administrative decision-making.

Application

The High Court finds that the Land Administrator acted within statutory authority.

The judge personally would have made a different policy choice.

Conclusion

The court should not replace the lawful administrative decision merely because it prefers another outcome.

Question 14: What broader principle can be derived from judicial review in compulsory acquisition?

Answer

The broader principle is that public statutory power is never legally unlimited.

The Land Acquisition Act 1960 grants substantial powers to acquiring authorities.

However, those powers remain subject to judicial supervision to ensure that they are exercised within the statute and not in excess or abuse of authority.

Case Example

Issue

How should the law balance governmental acquisition powers with judicial supervision?

Rule

The executive should retain freedom to make lawful acquisition decisions, while the courts supervise the legal boundaries of those powers.

Application

The State Authority makes a lawful planning decision within its statutory powers.

The court should respect that decision.

If the authority instead acts ultra vires or abuses the power, the High Court may intervene.

Conclusion

Judicial review balances administrative effectiveness with the rule of law.

3. Case Study Revisited

Mr. Rahman’s Challenge to the Land Administrator

Mr. Rahman’s land becomes subject to compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The Land Administrator makes decisions affecting the acquisition proceedings.

Mr. Rahman is dissatisfied.

He initially seeks a general appeal against the Land Administrator’s decision.

However, there is no automatic general right of appeal merely because he disagrees with that decision.

Mr. Rahman therefore considers the remedies specifically available under the statutory scheme.

For a dispute concerning the amount of compensation, he may need to use the statutory procedure for referring or determining compensation.

For a complaint concerning unlawful exercise of public power, judicial review may become relevant.

Mr. Rahman alleges that the authority acted outside the powers conferred by the Act.

He alternatively alleges abuse of power.

He further argues that irrelevant considerations were relied upon.

He claims that relevant considerations were ignored.

He also alleges that statutory acquisition powers were exercised for an improper purpose.

The High Court’s role is therefore not simply to determine whether it agrees with the Land Administrator.

Its role is to supervise whether the decision-making process remained within the spirit and powers of the governing statute.

Judicial review therefore operates as a mechanism for:

supervising public decision-makers;

controlling excess of statutory power;

preventing abuse of power;

restraining unlawful executive action;

checking executive excess;

and

protecting the rule of law.

The dispute consequently concerns:

The Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The Land Administrator.

Absence of a general appeal.

Statutory remedies.

Compensation disputes.

Judicial review.

Ultra vires.

Abuse of power.

Executive excess.

Executive encroachment.

The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

The doctrine of separation of powers.

The distinction between merits and legality.

4. Solution to the Case Study

Issue

The first issue is whether Mr. Rahman possesses a general right of appeal against a decision made by the Land Administrator.

The second issue is whether judicial review may be used to challenge the legality of the Land Administrator’s decision-making process.

The third issue is whether judicial review may be used merely to obtain a different compensation figure.

The fourth issue is whether the High Court may intervene where the decision-maker acts in excess or abuse of statutory power.

The fifth issue is how judicial review relates to the broader constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Rule

A right of appeal must arise from the applicable law and cannot simply be assumed from dissatisfaction with an administrative decision.

Judicial review is a supervisory public-law mechanism through which the High Court examines whether public authorities have acted within the powers and purposes conferred by statute.

Judicial review may be used to control:

ultra vires action;

excess of statutory power;

abuse of power;

improper purpose;

relevant and irrelevant considerations;

procedural illegality;

and other recognised public-law defects.

Judicial review is not ordinarily a substitute for an appeal.

Nor should it normally replace the statutory procedure for determining the appropriate amount of compensation.

However, where the compensation decision-making process itself is tainted by public-law illegality, judicial review may be relevant to the legality of that process.

Application

First: No Automatic General Appeal

Mr. Rahman cannot simply assert a general appellate right merely because he disagrees with the Land Administrator.

He must identify the specific statutory remedy applicable to the type of dispute he wishes to raise.

Second: Judicial Review of Legality

If Mr. Rahman establishes that the Land Administrator has exceeded the powers conferred by the Land Acquisition Act 1960, judicial review may be appropriate.

The High Court may examine whether the decision-maker remained within statutory jurisdiction.

Third: Abuse of Power

If the Land Administrator possessed the statutory power but exercised it for an improper purpose, the legality of the decision remains open to challenge.

For example, an acquisition power cannot lawfully be used to punish a particular landowner.

Fourth: Compensation

If Mr. Rahman merely believes that the compensation awarded is too low, he should ordinarily use the statutory compensation procedure.

Judicial review does not simply permit the High Court to replace the valuation with another figure because it prefers a different assessment.

However, if the compensation process was affected by bad faith, lack of jurisdiction or another public-law defect, a judicial review issue may arise.

Fifth: Executive Excess

Compulsory acquisition gives the State a powerful ability to interfere with private property.

Judicial supervision therefore provides an important safeguard against the acquisition power expanding beyond its legal limits.

Sixth: Separation of Powers

The High Court does not perform the executive function of deciding which land should ordinarily be acquired.

Instead, it performs the judicial function of determining whether the executive acted according to law.

This distinction preserves both administrative authority and judicial supervision.

Conclusion

Mr. Rahman does not possess an automatic general right of appeal against every decision of the Land Administrator.

Where a specific statutory remedy exists, particularly in relation to compensation, that mechanism should ordinarily be followed.

However, judicial review remains a powerful supervisory remedy where the complaint concerns the legality of public decision-making.

The High Court may intervene where the Land Administrator or acquiring authority acts outside statutory powers, abuses those powers or otherwise acts unlawfully.

Judicial review therefore provides an essential mechanism for checking executive excess while preserving the proper distinction between judicial supervision and administrative decision-making.

5. Critical Analysis

1. Judicial Review Must Be Distinguished from Appeal

This is the starting point for understanding the passage.

An appeal and judicial review are not interchangeable.

An appeal ordinarily focuses upon whether the decision should be affirmed, varied or reversed within the appellate jurisdiction provided by law.

Judicial review concentrates upon whether the public authority acted lawfully.

Confusing these remedies risks turning judicial review into an unrestricted reconsideration of administrative merits.

2. The Absence of Appeal Does Not Mean the Absence of Judicial Control

A decision may not be appealable and yet remain subject to judicial review.

This is because finality on the merits and legality of public power are different matters.

A public authority cannot necessarily become legally unaccountable merely because Parliament has not created a general appellate mechanism.

3. Judicial Review Is a Supervisory Jurisdiction

The High Court does not ordinarily administer the Land Acquisition Act 1960 itself.

That task belongs to the authorities designated by legislation.

The court instead supervises whether those authorities have remained within the law.

This preserves institutional boundaries.

4. Judicial Review Protects the Statutory Scheme

Judicial review should not be viewed as hostile to legislation.

Its purpose is often the opposite.

It ensures that statutory authorities obey the very limits Parliament imposed upon them.

Where a decision-maker exceeds those limits, judicial review restores the proper statutory framework.

5. Ultra Vires Is Central to Judicial Supervision

The doctrine of ultra vires reflects the basic proposition that a statutory authority cannot lawfully exercise powers it does not possess.

This is particularly important in compulsory acquisition because of the serious consequences of governmental interference with property.

6. Abuse of Power Is Different from Lack of Power

An authority may possess a legal power and still exercise it unlawfully.

For example, a Land Administrator may have statutory jurisdiction over acquisition proceedings but use the power for a collateral or improper purpose.

Judicial review therefore addresses not only whether power exists but also how that power is exercised.

7. Compensation Requires Careful Categorisation

The statement that judicial review is allowed “especially in reviewing the compensation” should be understood carefully.

A challenge merely seeking a higher compensation figure is ordinarily a matter for the statutory compensation mechanism under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Judicial review does not ordinarily perform the function of reassessing market value simply because the owner disagrees with the award.

However, judicial review may supervise the legality of decisions made in the compensation process where recognised public-law defects arise.

This distinction avoids confusing compensation review on the merits with judicial review of administrative legality.

8. Judicial Review Checks Executive Excess

Executive authorities require sufficient discretion to administer acquisition laws efficiently.

However, broad discretion carries a corresponding risk of overreach.

Judicial review ensures that executive convenience does not become a substitute for statutory legality.

9. Judicial Review Protects Against Encroachment upon Rights

Compulsory acquisition directly affects private property.

An unchecked executive acquisition power could substantially weaken constitutional and statutory protections.

Judicial review therefore acts as one mechanism for ensuring that State interference with property remains legally justified.

10. Separation of Powers Explains the Institutional Role of the Courts

The doctrine of separation of powers helps explain why courts supervise but ordinarily do not administer.

The legislature determines the statutory framework.

The executive implements that framework.

The judiciary interprets legal limits and determines whether governmental action conforms to them.

Judicial review gives practical effect to that relationship.

11. Malaysian Judicial Review Has Historical English Roots but Operates within Malaysian Law

Many judicial review concepts developed historically through English legal jurisprudence.

These include the traditional prerogative remedies and the doctrine of ultra vires.

However, Malaysian judicial review now operates within Malaysia’s own constitutional order, legislation and judicial authorities.

Its present legal basis should therefore not be understood merely as an imported English doctrine.

12. Judicial Review Balances Effective Government with the Rule of Law

Too little judicial control could permit administrative abuse.

Too much judicial substitution could prevent public authorities from performing their statutory functions effectively.

The correct balance is to allow decision-makers to exercise lawful discretion while enabling courts to intervene when legal boundaries are crossed.

6. Recommendations

1. Distinguish Clearly Between Appeal and Judicial Review

Landowners should first identify whether their complaint concerns the correctness of a decision or the legality of the decision-making process.

2. Identify the Appropriate Statutory Remedy

Where the Land Acquisition Act 1960 provides a specific mechanism for a particular dispute, that procedure should ordinarily be used.

3. Use Compensation Procedures for Ordinary Valuation Disputes

A landowner dissatisfied merely with the amount awarded should pursue the statutory mechanism dealing with compensation.

4. Preserve Judicial Review for Public-Law Illegality

Judicial review should remain available where the decision-maker exceeds or abuses statutory authority.

5. Keep Judicial Review Focused on Legality

Courts should avoid converting judicial review into a general appeal against the merits of acquisition decisions.

6. Require Land Administrators to Remain Within Statutory Powers

All acquisition decisions should be demonstrably connected with the powers and purposes conferred by the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

7. Prevent Abuse of Statutory Discretion

Acquisition authorities should maintain safeguards against mala fide, improper purpose and irrelevant considerations.

8. Preserve the High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction

Effective judicial supervision is necessary to ensure that statutory finality does not become immunity from the rule of law.

9. Maintain Clear Separation Between Administrative and Judicial Functions

Courts should supervise legality while leaving lawful planning and administrative judgments to the authorities entrusted with those functions.

10. Promote Transparent Decision-Making

Clear reasons and records can demonstrate that acquisition powers were exercised lawfully and reduce unnecessary judicial disputes.

7. Conclusion

The Land Acquisition Act 1960 provides mechanisms through which disputes arising from compulsory acquisition may be addressed.

However, there is no automatic general right of appeal merely because an affected person disagrees with a decision of the Land Administrator.

The availability of an appeal or other statutory remedy depends upon the particular legal framework governing the decision concerned.

Judicial review performs a different function.

It is a powerful procedural mechanism within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

Its purpose is to ensure that public bodies and statutory decision-makers remain within the powers, purposes and legal limits of the legislation governing them.

Judicial review may therefore be used to control an authority acting in excess of statutory power.

It may also address an abuse of power.

It may address improper purpose.

It may address mala fide.

It may address reliance upon irrelevant considerations.

It may address failure to consider relevant matters.

It may address other recognised forms of public-law illegality.

An important distinction must nevertheless be maintained in relation to compensation.

Where a landowner merely disputes the amount of compensation awarded, the appropriate statutory compensation mechanism should ordinarily be used.

Judicial review should not be treated simply as a substitute method for obtaining a higher valuation.

Where, however, the compensation decision-making process itself is affected by excess of jurisdiction, abuse of power or another recognised public-law defect, judicial review may become relevant to the legality of that process.

The wider purpose of judicial review is also constitutional in character.

It provides a means of checking executive excesses and encroachment.

It ensures that public authorities do not transform statutory discretion into unlimited governmental power.

The doctrine is historically connected with English public-law jurisprudence and the broader principle of separation of powers.

The legislature grants statutory powers.

The executive exercises those powers.

The judiciary supervises their legal limits.

For Malaysian Property Law, the central principle can therefore be stated as follows:

Judicial review is not a general appeal against the Land Administrator’s decisions but a supervisory mechanism through which the High Court ensures that compulsory acquisition authorities act within the powers and purposes conferred by the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and do not exceed or abuse their statutory authority.

Accordingly, judicial review balances:

the absence of an unrestricted appellate right;

the availability of specific statutory remedies;

the proper determination of compensation disputes;

the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction;

control of ultra vires and abusive administrative action;

protection against executive excess;

and

the fundamental constitutional principle that all public power must remain subject to law.