Malaysian Property Law

Mandatory Procedural Compliance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960: Form A, Form K, Certiorari and Article 13(1)

1. Case Study

Case Study: Failure by the State Authority and Land Administrator to Comply with Mandatory Acquisition Procedures

Background

Mr. Rahman is the registered proprietor of a parcel of land in Selangor.

The State Authority decides to acquire his land compulsorily under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Because compulsory acquisition permits the State to deprive an owner of property without his consent, the power must be exercised strictly within the statutory framework created by the Act.

The Land Acquisition Act 1960 therefore imposes both:

procedural requirements;

and

substantive considerations

upon the State Authority and the Land Administrator.

Those legal requirements are binding.

They are not merely administrative formalities that the authorities may choose to disregard.

Failure to Issue and Publish Form A

Under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the State Authority is required, in the circumstances contemplated by the provision, to issue the relevant preliminary notification in Form A.

In Mr. Rahman’s case, no Form A is issued or published.

As a result, there is no statutory public notice of the proposed acquisition.

Mr. Rahman argues that this omission fundamentally affects the legality of the acquisition process.

He contends that the Government cannot invoke the Land Acquisition Act 1960 as the source of its compulsory acquisition power while simultaneously disregarding the statutory requirements imposed by that same legislation.

Failure Relating to Form K

The acquisition proceedings nevertheless continue.

The Land Administrator subsequently fails to make the required endorsement or memorial associated with Form K, pursuant to sections 23 and 66 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Mr. Rahman therefore identifies two significant statutory defects:

First, the State Authority failed to comply with the section 4 requirement relating to Form A.

Second, the Land Administrator failed to make the required Form K memorial or endorsement under sections 23 and 66.

Government’s Argument

The Government argues that these defects are merely procedural.

It contends that the land was genuinely required for acquisition and that technical irregularities should not defeat an otherwise legitimate governmental purpose.

The Government further argues that Mr. Rahman eventually became aware of the acquisition and therefore suffered no real injustice.

Mr. Rahman’s Response

Mr. Rahman rejects that argument.

He maintains that compulsory acquisition is an extraordinary statutory power.

The State cannot lawfully deprive a person of property merely because the ultimate project is desirable.

The acquisition must be carried out in the manner prescribed by law.

Mr. Rahman therefore argues that failure to comply with mandatory requirements invalidates the exercise of statutory power itself.

Relevant Authority:

United Allied Empire Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor & Ors

The Court of Appeal dealt with closely comparable statutory non-compliance in United Allied Empire Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor & Ors.

The Court of Appeal held that compliance with the statutory requirements of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is mandatory in the compulsory acquisition concerned.

The State Authority had failed to issue Form A as required under section 4.

Consequently, there was no proper public notice of the acquisition.

The Land Administrator had also failed to make the necessary endorsement or memorial on Form K pursuant to sections 23 and 66.

Fatal Non-Compliance

The Court of Appeal regarded the statutory breaches as serious.

The failures were not treated as harmless irregularities.

Instead, the court held that the non-compliance was fatal to the land acquisition.

The legal authority to acquire land depended upon compliance with the mandatory statutory machinery.

Where that machinery was fundamentally disregarded, the purported acquisition could not remain valid merely because the Government wished it to do so.

Remedies Awarded

The landowner in United Allied Empire was granted a declaration.

The court also granted an order of certiorari quashing the Government’s decision to acquire the property.

This demonstrates that serious procedural non-compliance may invalidate the acquisition decision itself.

Relevant Authority:

Ee Chong Pang & Ors v The Land Administrator of the District of Alor Gajah & Anor

The consequences of procedural non-compliance were also considered in Ee Chong Pang & Ors v The Land Administrator of the District of Alor Gajah & Anor.

The Court of Appeal emphasised the special character of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The Act authorises the State Authority to deprive a person of private property compulsorily.

Accordingly, the statutory safeguards contained in the Act must be treated seriously.

Complete Failure to Publish Form A

In Ee Chong Pang, Form A was never published by the State Authority.

The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that the acquisition exercise had not been carried out according to the law.

The defect was not merely statutory.

It also had constitutional consequences.

Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution

Article 13(1) provides:

“No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.”

The Land Acquisition Act 1960 provides the legal framework through which compulsory deprivation of property may occur.

Where the Government fundamentally fails to comply with mandatory requirements of that statutory framework, the resulting deprivation cannot properly be characterised as one carried out in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal in Ee Chong Pang held the acquisition to be contrary to Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

The Central Conflict

The dispute therefore raises several important questions:

Are statutory procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 binding upon the State Authority and Land Administrator?

What is the legal effect of failing to issue or publish Form A under section 4?

What is the legal effect of failing to make the required Form K memorial or endorsement under sections 23 and 66?

Can fundamental procedural non-compliance invalidate the entire acquisition?

Can statutory illegality also render the acquisition unconstitutional under Article 13(1)?

The central principle is that:

where the Land Acquisition Act 1960 imposes mandatory requirements governing compulsory acquisition, those requirements must be complied with, and fundamental non-compliance may invalidate the acquisition and render the deprivation contrary to Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

2. Questions and Answers with Case Examples

Question 1: Are the statutory requirements of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 binding upon the State Authority and Land Administrator?

Answer

Yes.

The courts have emphasised that the procedural and substantive requirements imposed by the Land Acquisition Act 1960 are of fundamental importance.

Where a statutory requirement is mandatory, both the State Authority and Land Administrator are legally bound to comply with it.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the State Authority may ignore a mandatory procedural requirement because the acquisition serves an important public project.

Rule

Public purpose does not excuse non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements.

Application

The State wishes to construct a major public hospital but fails to comply with a compulsory notification requirement under the Act.

Conclusion

The importance of the project does not itself cure the statutory illegality.

Question 2: Why is strict statutory compliance especially important in compulsory acquisition?

Answer

Because compulsory acquisition permits the Government to deprive a person of private property without consent.

The statutory safeguards define the lawful boundaries of that exceptional governmental power.

Case Example

Issue

Whether compulsory acquisition procedures are merely administrative guidelines.

Rule

Mandatory acquisition procedures form part of the legal authority governing deprivation of property.

Application

Officials disregard the statutory procedure but argue that the ultimate acquisition is nevertheless fair.

Conclusion

The acquisition may still be unlawful because fairness cannot replace statutory compliance.

Question 3: What did the Court of Appeal decide in

United Allied Empire

?

Answer

The Court of Appeal held that compliance with the statutory requirements of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was mandatory in the acquisition concerned.

The failures involving Form A and Form K were regarded as fatal.

Case Example

Issue

Whether multiple failures to observe statutory acquisition requirements may invalidate the acquisition.

Rule

Fundamental non-compliance with mandatory provisions may invalidate the entire statutory exercise.

Application

The State fails to issue the preliminary notification and the Land Administrator later fails to complete another mandatory statutory step.

Conclusion

The acquisition may be quashed.

Question 4: What is the significance of Form A?

Answer

Form A is associated with the preliminary notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Its publication performs an important public-notice function.

It alerts affected owners and the public that particular land is likely to be required for acquisition.

Case Example

Issue

Whether an acquisition may proceed lawfully without the required preliminary public notification.

Rule

Where section 4 requires Form A, the State Authority must comply with the statutory requirement.

Application

No Form A is issued or published, but the acquisition proceeds.

Conclusion

The absence of Form A may amount to fundamental statutory non-compliance.

Question 5: Why is public notice legally important?

Answer

Public notice promotes transparency and informs persons whose legal rights may be affected.

It also demonstrates that the State is exercising compulsory acquisition powers through the public statutory process established by Parliament.

Case Example

Issue

Whether internal governmental knowledge is an adequate substitute for statutory public notice.

Rule

A statutory requirement of publication cannot ordinarily be replaced merely by internal administrative awareness.

Application

All government departments know of the project, but the statutory notification is never published.

Conclusion

The public-notice requirement remains unfulfilled.

Question 6: What was the Form K defect in

United Allied Empire

?

Answer

The Land Administrator failed to make the required endorsement or memorial associated with Form K, pursuant to sections 23 and 66 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

That failure formed part of the cumulative statutory non-compliance that the Court of Appeal regarded as fatal.

Case Example

Issue

Whether post-acquisition statutory formalities may simply be ignored.

Rule

Mandatory statutory requirements remain binding throughout the acquisition process.

Application

The Government takes possession but fails to complete a legally required memorial or endorsement.

Conclusion

Where the statutory requirement is mandatory and fundamental, the omission may affect the validity of the acquisition.

Question 7: Was the non-compliance in

United Allied Empire

treated as a mere technical irregularity?

Answer

No.

The Court of Appeal held that the non-compliance was fatal to the land acquisition.

The statutory failures affected the validity of the exercise of compulsory acquisition power itself.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the Government can cure complete non-compliance simply by describing it as technical.

Rule

The legal character of the statutory provision determines the consequence, not the label used by the authority.

Application

The Government entirely fails to perform a mandatory statutory act.

Conclusion

Calling the omission “technical” does not necessarily preserve the acquisition.

Question 8: What remedies were granted in

United Allied Empire

?

Answer

The landowner was awarded:

a declaration;

and

an order of certiorari quashing the Government’s decision to acquire.

Case Example

Issue

What remedy may follow where the acquisition decision is fundamentally unlawful?

Rule

Judicial review remedies may be available where the acquisition is affected by material statutory illegality.

Application

The State fails to comply with mandatory provisions that condition the lawful exercise of acquisition power.

Conclusion

The High Court may grant declaratory relief and certiorari where the legal requirements are satisfied.

Question 9: What happened in

Ee Chong Pang

?

Answer

In Ee Chong Pang & Ors v The Land Administrator of the District of Alor Gajah & Anor, Form A was never published.

The Court of Appeal held that the acquisition exercise had therefore not been carried out according to law.

The acquisition was held to be unconstitutional.

Case Example

Issue

Whether complete failure to publish Form A can have constitutional consequences.

Rule

Article 13(1) requires deprivation of property to occur in accordance with law.

Application

The State completely omits the statutory Form A publication and nevertheless acquires the land.

Conclusion

The acquisition may be constitutionally invalid.

Question 10: Why did the failure to publish Form A engage Article 13(1)?

Answer

Because the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is the statute that authorises the State to deprive a person of private property compulsorily.

Where the mandatory statutory process is not followed, the deprivation may no longer be regarded as having occurred in accordance with law.

Case Example

Issue

Whether Article 13(1) is satisfied simply because the Government invokes the name of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Rule

The acquisition must actually be carried out according to the law governing it.

Application

The Government relies upon the Act but ignores an essential mandatory requirement.

Conclusion

The deprivation may contravene Article 13(1).

Question 11: Does every procedural error automatically make an acquisition void?

Answer

No.

The authorities must be applied carefully.

The important question is whether the statutory requirement is mandatory or directory, and whether the breach is sufficiently serious to affect validity.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a harmless clerical mistake has the same legal effect as complete failure to publish Form A.

Rule

The nature, purpose and legal status of the statutory requirement must be considered.

Application

Case A involves a minor typo.

Case B involves complete non-publication of a mandatory preliminary notification.

Conclusion

Case B presents a substantially stronger challenge to validity.

Question 12: How is this different from

S Kulasingam

?

Answer

In S Kulasingam & Anor v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors, the delayed notation under section 9(1)(b) was treated as directory rather than mandatory.

That delay did not automatically invalidate the acquisition.

This demonstrates that not every provision of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 carries identical consequences upon breach.

Case Example

Issue

Whether all procedural requirements are equally fatal when breached.

Rule

Each provision must be interpreted separately.

Application

One statutory requirement is directory and complied with late.

Another mandatory requirement is never performed at all.

Conclusion

The legal consequences may differ fundamentally.

Question 13: What is the relationship between procedural compliance and constitutional validity?

Answer

Mandatory procedural compliance may form part of the legal foundation required by Article 13(1).

Where compulsory deprivation occurs through a process fundamentally inconsistent with the governing statute, the defect may become constitutional as well as statutory.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a statutory procedural breach can result in unconstitutional deprivation.

Rule

Article 13(1) requires deprivation according to law.

Application

The Government disregards a mandatory statutory procedure that conditions the lawful exercise of acquisition power.

Conclusion

The acquisition may contravene Article 13(1).

Question 14: What broader principle emerges from

United Allied Empire

and

Ee Chong Pang

?

Answer

The cases establish that mandatory statutory safeguards are integral to the lawful exercise of compulsory acquisition power.

Where the State fundamentally disregards those safeguards, the acquisition may be invalidated through judicial review and may also violate constitutional property protection.

Case Example

Issue

Whether administrative efficiency may override statutory acquisition procedures.

Rule

The Government must comply with mandatory legislation even where the project serves an important public purpose.

Application

Officials deliberately omit Form A to accelerate the acquisition process.

Conclusion

Administrative convenience cannot legitimise an acquisition carried out contrary to law.

3. Case Study Revisited

Mr. Rahman’s Challenge to the Statutory Validity of the Acquisition

Mr. Rahman’s land is compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The State Authority fails to issue or publish Form A pursuant to section 4.

Consequently, no proper statutory public notice is given.

The Land Administrator later fails to make the required memorial or endorsement associated with Form K pursuant to sections 23 and 66.

Mr. Rahman challenges the acquisition.

He relies upon United Allied Empire Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor & Ors.

The Court of Appeal in that case held that statutory compliance was mandatory in the acquisition concerned.

The failure involving Form A and the failure relating to Form K constituted serious departures from the statutory framework.

The non-compliance was held to be fatal to the acquisition.

The landowner was granted:

a declaration;

and

certiorari quashing the Government’s acquisition decision.

Mr. Rahman further relies upon Ee Chong Pang & Ors v The Land Administrator of the District of Alor Gajah & Anor.

There, Form A was never published.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that the Land Acquisition Act 1960 authorises the State to deprive a person of property.

Because the statutory process was not followed, the acquisition was not carried out according to law.

It was therefore contrary to Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

The dispute consequently involves:

mandatory statutory compliance;

procedural requirements;

substantive statutory requirements;

section 4 and Form A;

public notice;

sections 23 and 66;

Form K;

certiorari;

declaratory relief;

Article 13(1);

and

constitutional protection against deprivation of property otherwise than in accordance with law.

4. Solution to the Case Study

Issue

The first issue is whether the relevant procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 are mandatory and binding upon the State Authority and Land Administrator.

The second issue is whether failure to issue or publish Form A under section 4 materially invalidates the acquisition.

The third issue is whether failure to comply with the Form K requirements under sections 23 and 66 creates an additional fatal defect.

The fourth issue is whether such statutory non-compliance justifies certiorari and declaratory relief.

The fifth issue is whether the acquisition is contrary to Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution because the deprivation was not carried out in accordance with law.

Rule

The Court of Appeal in United Allied Empire held that compliance with the statutory requirements of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was mandatory in the acquisition before it.

The State Authority’s failure to issue Form A under section 4 resulted in the absence of the required public notice.

The Land Administrator’s failure to comply with the Form K memorial requirements under sections 23 and 66 constituted further non-compliance.

The combined statutory breaches were held to be fatal to the acquisition.

The landowner received declaratory relief and certiorari.

In Ee Chong Pang, the complete failure to publish Form A meant that the acquisition was not conducted according to law.

It was therefore inconsistent with Article 13(1).

However, every statutory provision must be interpreted individually to determine whether it is mandatory or directory.

Application

First: Section 4 and Form A

No Form A was issued or published in Mr. Rahman’s case.

This amounts to complete non-compliance rather than imperfect or delayed compliance.

The statutory public-notice mechanism was entirely absent.

On facts analogous to United Allied Empire and Ee Chong Pang, this is a serious legality defect.

Second: Form K

The Land Administrator also failed to comply with the required Form K memorial or endorsement.

This demonstrates additional departure from the statutory acquisition process.

Where the requirement is mandatory, such a failure further undermines the validity of the acquisition.

Third: Public Purpose Does Not Cure the Defect

Even if the acquisition is genuinely intended for an important public project, the State must exercise its power according to law.

A proper purpose cannot replace mandatory procedural compliance.

Fourth: Article 13(1)

Mr. Rahman is being deprived of property by compulsory State action.

Article 13(1) permits that deprivation only if it is carried out in accordance with law.

If the acquisition fundamentally disregards mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the deprivation may be unconstitutional.

Fifth: Judicial Review

Where the statutory non-compliance goes to the validity of the acquisition, certiorari may be available to quash the impugned decision.

A declaration may additionally recognise that the acquisition is unlawful.

Conclusion

Mr. Rahman has a strong basis for challenging the acquisition where Form A was never issued or published and the required Form K memorial was not made.

Following United Allied Empire, such mandatory statutory non-compliance may be fatal.

Following Ee Chong Pang, complete failure to publish Form A may also render the acquisition contrary to Article 13(1).

5. Critical Analysis

1. Compulsory Acquisition Powers Must Be Exercised Strictly within Statute

The Land Acquisition Act 1960 is not merely a procedural guide for administrators.

It is the legal source of the State’s extraordinary power to take private property.

The State must therefore accept both the power granted by the Act and the limits attached to that power.

2. Procedural Requirements Can Be Conditions of Validity

A procedure may appear technical but nevertheless perform an essential legal function.

Form A, for example, provides statutory public notice.

Failure to perform such a requirement may therefore affect the legal validity of the acquisition itself.

3. Form A Protects Transparency and Notice

The preliminary notification ensures that acquisition begins through a visible statutory process.

Without it, affected landowners may be deprived of the notice contemplated by Parliament.

This makes complete non-publication substantially more serious than an ordinary clerical defect.

4. Form K Reflects Continuing Statutory Discipline

The duty to make the prescribed memorial or endorsement confirms that statutory compliance does not end once the Government decides to acquire.

The acquisition process remains legally regulated at later stages.

5.

United Allied Empire

Shows That Cumulative Non-Compliance Can Be Fatal

The failures concerning both Form A and Form K demonstrated significant disregard of the statutory scheme.

The Court of Appeal therefore did not treat the acquisition as merely irregular.

It treated the defects as fatal.

6.

Ee Chong Pang

Converts Statutory Illegality into a Constitutional Question

The case demonstrates the direct connection between the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and Article 13(1).

The Constitution permits deprivation of property only according to law.

If the statutory route is fundamentally ignored, the constitutional condition is not satisfied.

7. Article 13(1) Requires Actual Compliance, Not Merely Statutory Authority in the Abstract

The Government cannot answer every challenge by saying:

“Parliament has enacted the Land Acquisition Act 1960.”

The real question is whether the Government actually exercised its acquisition power in accordance with that Act.

A lawful statute may still be applied unlawfully.

8. Mandatory and Directory Requirements Must Not Be Confused

The legal consequence of non-compliance depends upon the character of the statutory provision.

This is why S Kulasingam remains important.

The delayed section 9(1)(b) notation in that case was treated as directory rather than automatically fatal.

Thus, each provision must be construed separately.

9. “Directory” Does Not Mean Legally Meaningless

A directory requirement must still be complied with.

The distinction concerns whether breach automatically invalidates the acquisition.

The State should not treat directory provisions as optional.

10. Certiorari Enforces the Boundary between Lawful and Unlawful Acquisition

Certiorari does not permit the court to decide whether the acquisition project is politically or economically wise.

Instead, it allows the court to determine whether the Government exercised statutory power legally.

This preserves the distinction between merits and legality.

11. Public Interest Does Not Override Mandatory Statutory Safeguards

Important infrastructure projects may create pressure for speed.

However, statutory safeguards exist precisely because compulsory acquisition imposes serious burdens upon private owners.

Government convenience cannot replace legal compliance.

12. The Correct Analytical Method Is Provision-Specific

A strong legal analysis should not merely assert:

“There was procedural non-compliance, therefore the acquisition is void.”

Instead, it should ask:

What statutory provision was breached?

What is the purpose of that provision?

Is it mandatory or directory?

Was there complete failure, delayed compliance, or minor irregularity?

Did the breach affect the legality of the acquisition?

Does Article 13(1) become engaged?

6. Recommendations

1. State Authorities Should Establish a Mandatory-Compliance Checklist

Every compulsory acquisition should be checked against all legally required procedural and substantive steps.

2. Form A Should Be Issued and Published Strictly in Accordance with Section 4

The public-notice requirement should not be treated as dispensable.

3. Land Administrators Should Ensure Form K Requirements Are Properly Completed

The required memorials or endorsements under the Act should be documented accurately.

4. Complete Documentary Records Should Be Maintained

Evidence of statutory compliance should be retained for each acquisition stage.

5. Mandatory and Directory Provisions Should Be Identified in Advance

Authorities should understand the legal consequences associated with each statutory obligation.

6. Complete Non-Compliance Should Receive Particular Scrutiny

Failure to perform a mandatory act at all is substantially more serious than a minor irregularity.

7. Article 13(1) Should Guide Acquisition Administration

Officials should recognise that statutory compliance is connected directly with constitutional property protection.

8. Certiorari Should Remain Available for Fundamental Illegality

Judicial review is necessary where the State exercises compulsory powers outside the statutory framework.

9. Public Purpose Should Never Be Treated as a Defence to Statutory Non-Compliance

A socially valuable project must still be pursued lawfully.

10. Examination Answers Should Link Procedure, Statutory Validity and Constitutional Protection

A strong answer should explain how breach of a mandatory statutory procedure affects not only administrative legality but potentially Article 13(1).

7. Conclusion

The decisions in United Allied Empire Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor & Ors and Ee Chong Pang & Ors v The Land Administrator of the District of Alor Gajah & Anor demonstrate the fundamental importance of statutory compliance in compulsory acquisition.

The Land Acquisition Act 1960 confers extraordinary powers upon the State Authority and Land Administrator.

Those powers permit the compulsory deprivation of private property.

Accordingly, the procedural and substantive conditions imposed by the Act are not merely administrative conveniences.

Where they are mandatory, they are binding legal conditions governing the lawful exercise of acquisition power.

In United Allied Empire, the State Authority failed to issue Form A under section 4.

This resulted in the absence of the statutory public notice contemplated by the Act.

The Land Administrator also failed to make the required memorial or endorsement associated with Form K pursuant to sections 23 and 66.

The Court of Appeal held that the statutory non-compliance was fatal to the acquisition.

The landowner obtained:

a declaration;

and

an order of certiorari quashing the Government’s decision to acquire.

The constitutional significance of such procedural failures was further demonstrated in Ee Chong Pang.

There, Form A was never published.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that the Land Acquisition Act 1960 authorises the State Authority to deprive a person of property.

Because the statutory procedure was not followed, the acquisition was not carried out according to law.

It was therefore contrary to Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 13(1) provides:

“No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.”

The crucial point is that the Constitution requires more than the mere existence of an acquisition statute.

The Government must actually exercise its compulsory acquisition powers according to that statute.

However, an important qualification remains.

The cases do not establish that every procedural irregularity automatically invalidates an acquisition.

The court must determine whether the particular statutory requirement is:

mandatory;

or

directory.

It must also consider the purpose of the provision, the seriousness of the breach, and whether the defect affects the legal validity of the acquisition.

This is why S Kulasingam & Anor v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors remains important as a contrast.

There, delayed compliance with section 9(1)(b) was treated as directory rather than automatically fatal.

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

Where the Land Acquisition Act 1960 imposes a mandatory procedural or substantive requirement governing compulsory acquisition, the State Authority and Land Administrator are legally bound to comply with it; fundamental non-compliance may be fatal to the acquisition, justify declaratory and certiorari relief, and render the deprivation contrary to Article 13(1) because the property has not been taken in accordance with law.

The correct examination approach is therefore:

First, identify the precise statutory provision breached.

Second, determine whether that requirement is mandatory or directory.

Third, assess the nature and seriousness of the non-compliance.

Fourth, determine whether the breach invalidates the acquisition.

Fifth, consider whether Article 13(1) is thereby violated.

Sixth, determine whether declaratory relief and certiorari are appropriate.

Ultimately, these authorities reinforce the fundamental proposition that:

the State may exercise compulsory acquisition powers only by complying with the legal conditions attached to those powers, because constitutional protection of property requires deprivation to occur in accordance with law.