Malaysian Property Law

Persons Entitled to Challenge Compulsory Acquisition Proceedings under Section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960

1. Case Study

Case Study: Who Has Sufficient Interest to Participate in or Challenge Compulsory Acquisition Proceedings?

Background

The State Authority decides to compulsorily acquire a large parcel of land under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The registered proprietor of the land is Mr. Rahman.

However, Mr. Rahman is not the only person whose legal or economic interests are affected by the acquisition.

The land is also subject to a registered charge in favour of a bank.

Part of the property has been leased to a manufacturing company under a fixed-term lease.

Another portion is the subject of a binding contract of sale between Mr. Rahman and Ms. Lim.

A property developer also holds an option giving it the right to purchase part of the land.

A neighbouring proprietor enjoys the benefit of a restrictive covenant affecting the acquired land.

An attaching creditor has obtained legal process against Mr. Rahman’s interest in the property.

A tenant occupying another part of the property claims an equitable interest arising from the circumstances of the tenancy.

The acquisition is also being undertaken for a government project on behalf of the Director of the Public Works Department.

The question is therefore not simply whether Mr. Rahman, as registered proprietor, is affected.

The broader question is:

Which persons fall within the statutory category of “person interested” under section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and may therefore participate in, assert rights within, or where legally appropriate challenge aspects of the acquisition proceedings?

Section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960

The concept of “person interested” is important because compulsory acquisition may affect several different interests in the same property.

The statutory concept is not confined exclusively to the registered proprietor.

A person may fall within the category where he possesses a legally recognised interest in the acquired land or in the compensation payable because of its acquisition.

The expression therefore extends to various proprietary, contractual, security and equitable interests.

Registered Owner

Mr. Rahman clearly has a direct interest.

His ownership is being compulsorily extinguished by the acquisition.

He is therefore a central person interested in the proceedings.

Chargee or Mortgagee

The bank holding the registered charge also possesses an interest in the property.

Its security is directly affected because the land securing the debt is being acquired.

The chargee may therefore have an interest in the compensation that effectively replaces the acquired property.

Fixed-Term Lessee

The manufacturing company occupies part of the land under a lease for a fixed term.

The acquisition interferes with its contractual and proprietary right to possess and use the property for the remainder of the lease.

A fixed-term lessee may therefore fall within the category of persons interested.

Contractual Purchaser

Ms. Lim has entered into a binding contract to purchase part of the property.

Although formal transfer has not yet been completed, she has acquired a legally significant interest arising from the contract of sale.

Her position may therefore be affected if the State compulsorily acquires the property before registration occurs.

Accordingly, a purchaser under a contract of sale may qualify as a person interested.

Option-Holder

A developer possesses an option to purchase a portion of the land.

The option gives the developer an enforceable legal right, subject to its terms, to acquire the property.

Compulsory acquisition may destroy the practical value of that option.

An option-holder may therefore possess a sufficient interest to fall within the statutory category.

Legal and Equitable Interests

The expression “person interested” also extends beyond registered legal ownership.

A person possessing a legal interest in the property may qualify.

Likewise, a person possessing a recognised equitable interest may also qualify.

This reflects the broader principle that compulsory acquisition affects substantive proprietary interests, not merely names appearing on the register.

Attaching Creditor

An attaching creditor has invoked legal process against the land or the owner’s interest in it.

Because the creditor’s enforcement rights may be affected by the acquisition, the creditor may possess a sufficient legal interest in the property or compensation to fall within the statutory category.

Beneficiary of a Restrictive Covenant

A neighbouring owner has the benefit of a restrictive covenant burdening the acquired land.

The acquisition may interfere with or extinguish that covenant.

Because the neighbouring proprietor possesses an enforceable property-related benefit, that person may also be treated as interested in the acquisition.

Tenant with an Equity

Another occupier is not merely a tenant at will.

The tenant claims an equitable interest arising from the circumstances of occupation and dealings with the owner.

A tenant with an equity may therefore possess sufficient interest to come within the statutory concept.

This must be distinguished from a tenant at will, who, as previously noted, is excluded from the statutory definition.

Director of the Public Works Department

The passage also identifies the Director of the Public Works Department on whose behalf the land is acquired as falling within the recognised categories relevant to the acquisition proceedings.

This should be understood in the particular statutory and procedural context in which the Director is acting.

The inclusion demonstrates that the concept of an interested participant in acquisition proceedings may extend beyond conventional private ownership interests where the statutory scheme recognises a sufficient connection with the acquisition.

The Central Conflict

The main question is therefore:

Is the right to participate in or challenge land acquisition proceedings limited to the registered proprietor, or can other persons possessing legal, equitable, contractual, security or other recognised interests also qualify as “persons interested” under section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960?

The stronger principle is that the statutory concept is broader than ownership alone.

2. Questions and Answers with Case Examples

Question 1: Who may challenge or participate in acquisition proceedings as a “person interested”?

Answer

Persons falling within the statutory category of “person interested” under section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 may assert rights affected by compulsory acquisition.

The concept includes persons possessing recognised interests in the land or compensation.

It is therefore broader than registered ownership alone.

Case Example

Issue

Whether only the registered proprietor may assert rights in compulsory acquisition proceedings.

Rule

A person with a legally recognised interest in the land or compensation may fall within the statutory category.

Application

Mr. Rahman owns the property, but a bank holds a charge and a tenant holds a fixed-term lease.

Conclusion

All may possess interests requiring recognition within the acquisition process.

Question 2: Is the registered owner a person interested?

Answer

Yes.

The registered owner possesses the clearest direct proprietary interest in the acquired land.

Compulsory acquisition deprives the owner of title and therefore directly affects the owner’s property rights.

Case Example

Issue

Whether Mr. Rahman may participate in proceedings concerning acquisition of land registered in his name.

Rule

An owner whose property is compulsorily acquired possesses a direct legal interest.

Application

Mr. Rahman’s title is extinguished by the acquisition.

Conclusion

He is plainly a person interested.

Question 3: Is a chargee or mortgagee a person interested?

Answer

Yes.

A chargee or mortgagee possesses a security interest over the land.

The compulsory acquisition affects that security because the property against which the debt is secured is being taken.

The chargee may therefore have an interest in the compensation payable.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a bank holding a charge over acquired land may assert an interest in compensation.

Rule

A chargee or mortgagee possesses a legally recognised security interest affected by acquisition.

Application

Bank A has advanced RM5 million to the owner and holds a registered charge over the property.

The land is then compulsorily acquired.

Conclusion

Bank A may qualify as a person interested because its security interest is affected.

Question 4: Is a fixed-term lessee a person interested?

Answer

Yes.

A lessee holding a lease for a fixed term has a legally enforceable interest in possession and use of the property for the duration of the lease.

Compulsory acquisition may terminate or substantially interfere with that interest.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a tenant with a 20-year lease has an interest in acquisition proceedings.

Rule

A fixed-term lease gives the lessee a recognised legal interest in the land.

Application

A manufacturing company has 12 years remaining on its lease when the land is acquired.

Conclusion

The company may qualify as a person interested.

Question 5: Can a purchaser under a contract of sale qualify as a person interested?

Answer

Yes.

A person who has entered into a contract to purchase land that is subsequently compulsorily acquired may possess a sufficient interest.

The purchaser’s rights do not necessarily disappear merely because registration has not yet been completed.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a buyer under a signed sale and purchase agreement has standing despite incomplete registration.

Rule

A contractual purchaser may possess a legally significant interest in the acquired property.

Application

Ms. Lim signs a binding agreement to purchase land and pays the purchase price.

Before transfer is registered, the land is compulsorily acquired.

Conclusion

She may qualify as a person interested.

Question 6: Can an option-holder qualify?

Answer

Yes.

An option-holder may possess a legally enforceable right relating to the acquisition of the property.

Compulsory acquisition may destroy or substantially affect the value of that right.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a developer holding an option to purchase land has a sufficient interest.

Rule

An enforceable option may constitute a legally recognised interest connected with the property.

Application

Developer B has paid consideration for an option exercisable within six months.

The State acquires the property before the option expires.

Conclusion

The option-holder may fall within the category of persons interested.

Question 7: Are persons with equitable interests included?

Answer

Yes.

A person with a recognised equitable interest in the property may qualify as a person interested.

The statutory concept is therefore not limited to formal legal title.

This principle is consistent with the reasoning in JW Properties Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor (and Another Appeal), where a bona fide purchaser for value was recognised as having an equitable and lawful interest sufficient to support entitlement to compensation.

Case Example

Issue

Whether an equitable purchaser may assert an interest where formal transfer remains incomplete.

Rule

A genuine equitable proprietary interest may be legally recognised in acquisition compensation proceedings.

Application

A buyer has substantially completed a purchase but title remains registered in the seller’s name.

Conclusion

The buyer’s equitable interest may qualify him as a person interested.

Question 8: Can an attaching creditor be a person interested?

Answer

Yes.

An attaching creditor may possess an enforceable legal interest affecting the land or the owner’s proprietary rights.

Because acquisition may affect the creditor’s ability to enforce against the property, the creditor may have an interest in the compensation payable.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a creditor who has attached the debtor’s land may participate when the land is later acquired.

Rule

A legally enforceable attachment may give the creditor a sufficient interest in the property or its compensation proceeds.

Application

Creditor C obtains an attachment over Mr. Rahman’s land.

Before enforcement is completed, the State acquires the property.

Conclusion

Creditor C may qualify as a person interested.

Question 9: Can a person entitled to the benefit of a restrictive covenant qualify?

Answer

Yes.

A restrictive covenant may give a neighbouring owner a legally enforceable benefit affecting how another parcel may be used.

If the burdened land is acquired, the beneficiary’s interest may be affected.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the owner of neighbouring land benefiting from a covenant may have an interest in the acquisition.

Rule

A person possessing the benefit of an enforceable restrictive covenant may have a recognised property-related interest.

Application

Mr. Lee’s neighbouring land benefits from a covenant preventing industrial use of the acquired property.

The State acquires the burdened land.

Conclusion

Mr. Lee may qualify as a person interested because the acquisition affects the covenant from which he benefits.

Question 10: Can a tenant with an equity qualify?

Answer

Yes.

A tenant who possesses an equitable interest going beyond mere occupation may fall within the statutory category.

The key question is whether the tenant has a legally recognisable equitable interest.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a tenant’s equitable rights may support participation in acquisition proceedings.

Rule

A tenant with an equity may qualify where that equitable interest is legally recognised.

Application

A tenant has made substantial improvements in reliance upon an enforceable representation by the owner giving rise to equitable rights.

The land is later acquired.

Conclusion

The tenant may have a sufficient interest to qualify.

Question 11: Is a tenant at will treated in the same way as a tenant with an equity?

Answer

No.

This distinction is important.

A tenant at will is excluded from the statutory definition of “person interested”.

A tenant with an equity, by contrast, may possess additional recognised equitable rights and may therefore qualify.

Case Example

Issue

Whether two occupiers have the same legal status.

Rule

A tenant at will and a tenant possessing an independent equitable interest are legally distinct.

Application

Tenant A occupies solely at the owner’s will.

Tenant B has enforceable equitable rights arising from representations and reliance.

Conclusion

Tenant B may have a sufficient interest, while Tenant A is expressly excluded as a tenant at will.

Question 12: Why are legal and equitable interests both important?

Answer

Compulsory acquisition may extinguish interests that exist beyond formal registered title.

If compensation were limited strictly to the registered proprietor, other substantive proprietary interests could be ignored.

Recognition of both legal and equitable interests therefore promotes a fairer allocation of compensation.

Case Example

Issue

Whether compensation should follow only registered ownership.

Rule

The statutory concept of interested persons may recognise substantive proprietary interests beyond legal title.

Application

The seller remains registered owner, but the purchaser has acquired the beneficial interest.

Conclusion

Both the legal and equitable positions must be considered.

Question 13: What is the position of the Director of the Public Works Department?

Answer

The passage identifies the Director of the Public Works Department on whose behalf the land is acquired as falling within the recognised category relevant to acquisition proceedings.

This should be understood in the statutory and procedural context in which the Director participates in the acquisition.

It demonstrates that the concept of an interested participant is not necessarily limited to private proprietary claimants where the statutory framework recognises another legally sufficient connection with the proceedings.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the acquiring government’s project representative may have a recognised role in acquisition proceedings.

Rule

The legal status of a participant depends upon the statutory framework and the capacity in which the person acts.

Application

Land is acquired specifically for a Public Works Department project and the Director acts on behalf of the department within the statutory acquisition process.

Conclusion

The Director may have standing or recognised participation in that statutory capacity.

Question 14: Does every person economically affected by acquisition become a person interested?

Answer

No.

There must be a legally recognisable interest in the land or compensation.

Mere commercial inconvenience or remote economic loss does not necessarily create statutory status.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a nearby business losing customer traffic because of a road acquisition is automatically a person interested.

Rule

The claimant must show a recognised legal, equitable, contractual, proprietary or compensation-related interest.

Application

A café located several streets away loses customers after construction but has no legal interest in the acquired land.

Conclusion

Economic disadvantage alone does not necessarily make the café owner a person interested.

3. Case Study Revisited

Multiple Interests in Mr. Rahman’s Acquired Land

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

Several parties claim rights affected by the acquisition.

Mr. Rahman is the registered owner.

A bank holds a charge over the property.

A manufacturing company possesses a fixed-term lease.

Ms. Lim has entered into a binding contract to purchase part of the land.

A developer holds an option to purchase another portion.

An attaching creditor has taken enforcement steps against the owner’s interest.

A neighbouring proprietor benefits from a restrictive covenant.

A tenant claims an equitable interest.

The land is being acquired for a Public Works Department project.

The central statutory question is whether these parties fall within the concept of “person interested” under section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The category is broader than registered ownership.

It may include:

the registered owner;

a chargee or mortgagee;

a fixed-term lessee;

a contractual purchaser;

an option-holder;

persons with legal interests;

persons with equitable interests;

an attaching creditor;

a person entitled to the benefit of a restrictive covenant;

a tenant possessing an equity;

and, in the procedural context identified,

the Director of the Public Works Department on whose behalf the land is acquired.

The category does not extend without limit.

A tenant at will, for example, is excluded.

The underlying principle is that compulsory acquisition may affect numerous legally recognised interests in the same property.

4. Solution to the Case Study

Issue

The first issue is whether only the registered proprietor may participate in or challenge acquisition proceedings.

The second issue is whether security, leasehold, contractual and option interests fall within the statutory concept of a person interested.

The third issue is whether equitable interests may qualify even where legal title is absent.

The fourth issue is whether creditors and beneficiaries of restrictive covenants may possess sufficient interests.

The fifth issue is how a tenant with an equity differs from a tenant at will.

The sixth issue concerns the particular statutory position of the Director of the Public Works Department where land is acquired on behalf of that department.

Rule

Under section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the concept of a “person interested” extends beyond the registered owner.

It includes persons possessing legally recognised interests in the acquired land or compensation.

The recognised categories described in the authorities include:

owners;

chargees or mortgagees;

fixed-term lessees;

contractual purchasers;

option-holders;

persons with legal or equitable interests;

attaching creditors;

persons entitled to the benefit of restrictive covenants;

tenants with an equity;

and, within the relevant statutory context,

the Director of the Public Works Department on whose behalf land is acquired.

A tenant at will is excluded.

Application

First: Mr. Rahman as Owner

Mr. Rahman clearly possesses a direct proprietary interest.

He is therefore a person interested.

Second: The Bank as Chargee

The bank’s security interest is affected when the land is acquired.

The compensation may replace the property that previously secured the debt.

The bank therefore has a recognised interest.

Third: Fixed-Term Lessee

The lessee loses the benefit of possession for the remaining lease period.

That is a legally recognised interest affected by acquisition.

Fourth: Contractual Purchaser

Ms. Lim has entered into a binding purchase contract.

Although she may not yet hold registered title, she possesses an interest capable of legal recognition.

Her position is consistent with the broader approach taken in cases recognising equitable purchasers.

Fifth: Option-Holder

The developer’s option is an enforceable contractual right connected with the property.

Acquisition may extinguish its practical value.

The option-holder may therefore possess sufficient interest.

Sixth: Attaching Creditor

The attaching creditor has taken legal enforcement steps against the property.

The acquisition affects the subject matter against which enforcement would otherwise occur.

The creditor may therefore have an interest in the compensation.

Seventh: Restrictive Covenant Beneficiary

The neighbouring proprietor possesses a recognised property-related benefit.

Acquisition may alter or eliminate that benefit.

The beneficiary may therefore qualify as interested.

Eighth: Tenant with an Equity

The tenant’s position depends upon the existence of a genuine equitable interest.

If established, such an interest may support participation in the acquisition proceedings.

This is materially different from a tenant at will, who is excluded.

Ninth: Director of the Public Works Department

Where the land is acquired on behalf of the Public Works Department, the Director’s participation should be understood according to the capacity recognised by the statutory framework.

It should not simply be equated with the ordinary private proprietary interest of an owner or mortgagee.

Conclusion

The acquisition proceedings are not confined to the interests of Mr. Rahman as registered proprietor.

Numerous other persons may possess sufficient legal, equitable, contractual or security interests to fall within the category of “person interested”.

The decisive question is therefore not simply whose name appears on the land register.

The court must identify the legally recognised interests actually affected by compulsory acquisition.

5. Critical Analysis

1. “Person Interested” Is Deliberately Broader Than Ownership

Compulsory acquisition affects more than title.

Land may be subject to mortgages, leases, contracts, options, covenants and equitable interests.

A narrow rule recognising only registered owners would therefore fail to reflect the true legal structure of property ownership.

2. The Concept Protects the Compensation Interests of Multiple Parties

When land is acquired, the State effectively converts proprietary interests into monetary compensation.

The compensation process must therefore identify all persons whose legally recognised interests have been extinguished or affected.

This explains why the definition focuses upon interests in compensation as well as interests in land.

3. Mortgagees and Chargees Demonstrate the Importance of Security Interests

A lender may never occupy the property.

Nevertheless, its financial security depends upon the land.

Compulsory acquisition affects that security directly.

Recognising the chargee as a person interested therefore protects the integrity of secured lending.

4. Fixed-Term Lessees Demonstrate That Possession Itself May Have Value

A lease is more than temporary occupation.

It may confer valuable rights of possession and use for a defined period.

If acquisition terminates those rights early, the lessee has suffered a proprietary loss distinct from that of the freehold owner.

5. Contractual Purchasers Illustrate the Importance of Substance Over Registration Alone

A purchaser may have entered into a binding transaction and paid valuable consideration even though legal title has not yet been registered.

Ignoring such an interest would permit formal registration to overshadow substantive proprietary rights.

The reasoning is consistent with the equitable approach demonstrated in JW Properties.

6. Option-Holders Show That Future Acquisition Rights May Be Legally Significant

An option is not the same as ownership.

However, it is also more than a mere hope of purchasing land.

Where enforceable, it constitutes a legal right whose value may be destroyed by compulsory acquisition.

This explains why an option-holder may fall within the wider category.

7. Restrictive Covenants Demonstrate That Property Interests Can Exist Without Possession

A person benefiting from a restrictive covenant may neither own nor occupy the acquired land.

Yet that person’s own property rights may depend upon restrictions affecting the acquired parcel.

Acquisition may therefore interfere with a legally recognised benefit even though the claimant has no possessory interest in the acquired land itself.

8. Equitable Interests Prevent Excessive Formalism

Equity recognises that beneficial ownership and legal title may not always coincide.

By recognising equitable interests, the acquisition framework avoids automatically transferring compensation to the person with formal title where another person possesses the substantive beneficial interest.

9. The Tenant-at-Will Exclusion Shows That the Category Has Limits

The definition is broad but not unlimited.

A tenant at will has deliberately been excluded.

This demonstrates that not every relationship with acquired land creates statutory entitlement.

There must be a sufficiently recognised legal or equitable interest.

10. Attaching Creditors Illustrate the Interaction Between Acquisition and Enforcement Law

Compulsory acquisition may occur while creditors are enforcing claims against property.

The acquisition should not simply destroy those legally recognised enforcement interests without consideration.

Recognising attaching creditors ensures that the compensation process takes account of existing legal claims against the property.

11. The Director of Public Works Department Must Be Understood in Context

The inclusion of the Director should not be treated mechanically as establishing that every statutory body or public official is automatically a “person interested”.

The legal position depends upon the capacity in which the Director acts and the particular statutory scheme governing the acquisition.

This preserves consistency with the broader principle that status alone does not automatically create a compensable proprietary interest.

12. Standing Should Follow Legally Recognised Interest

The overall logic of section 2(1) is that a claimant should possess a real legal relationship with the property or compensation.

This prevents acquisition proceedings from being challenged by strangers with no proprietary, equitable, contractual or statutory connection.

At the same time, it ensures that persons whose genuine interests are affected are not excluded merely because they lack registered title.

6. Recommendations

1. Identify All Relevant Interests at an Early Stage

The Land Administrator should ascertain not only the registered proprietor but also charges, leases, contractual interests, options and other recognised rights.

2. Do Not Treat Registration as the Sole Test

Registered title is important but should not automatically exclude legal and equitable interests recognised by law.

3. Require Documentary Evidence of Claimed Interests

Contractual purchasers, option-holders, creditors and equitable claimants should produce sufficient evidence of the interest asserted.

4. Protect Security Interests

Chargees and mortgagees should be properly notified and their compensation interests considered.

5. Recognise Fixed-Term Leasehold Interests

The remaining duration, rights and value of a lease should be taken into account where relevant.

6. Distinguish Genuine Options from Mere Negotiations

Only legally enforceable option rights should ordinarily support a claim to interested-person status.

7. Examine Equitable Interests Substantively

Courts should determine whether the claimant possesses a genuine equitable proprietary interest rather than a merely personal expectation.

8. Preserve the Statutory Exclusion of Tenants at Will

The express statutory limitation should be respected.

9. Analyse Public Officials According to Their Statutory Capacity

The position of persons such as the Director of the Public Works Department should be understood according to the specific role conferred by the acquisition framework rather than by general assumptions about public bodies.

10. Ensure Compensation Reflects the Interests Actually Affected

The compensation process should recognise the legal and equitable interests extinguished by compulsory acquisition so that payment does not produce unjust enrichment or ignore genuine rights.

7. Conclusion

The ability to participate in or challenge compulsory acquisition proceedings is generally connected with whether the claimant falls within the category of a “person interested” under section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The concept is significantly broader than registered ownership.

The registered owner is clearly included because compulsory acquisition directly removes the owner’s proprietary title.

However, other persons may also possess legally recognised interests affected by the acquisition.

A chargee or mortgagee may qualify because acquisition affects the land securing the debt.

A fixed-term lessee may qualify because compulsory acquisition terminates or interferes with the valuable right to possess the property for the remainder of the lease.

A contractual purchaser may qualify even though registration has not yet been completed because the purchase agreement may create a legally significant interest in the land.

An option-holder may also possess a sufficient interest where the option constitutes an enforceable right to acquire the property.

The category further extends to persons possessing legal and equitable interests.

This is consistent with the principle that the law should examine substantive proprietary interests rather than relying exclusively upon formal registration.

An attaching creditor may qualify where the acquisition affects the creditor’s enforcement rights against the property.

A person entitled to the benefit of a restrictive covenant may also possess a recognised interest even though that person does not own the acquired land.

A tenant with an equity may similarly qualify where genuine equitable rights exist.

This must be distinguished from a tenant at will, who is excluded from the statutory definition.

The passage also identifies the Director of the Public Works Department on whose behalf the land is acquired as having a recognised position in the acquisition process.

That category should be understood according to the particular statutory capacity in which the Director acts rather than as a general proposition that every statutory body or public official automatically possesses the same private-law interest as an owner or mortgagee.

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

The category of “person interested” under section 2(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is not confined to the registered proprietor but may extend to persons possessing recognised legal, equitable, contractual, security, leasehold or compensation-related interests affected by compulsory acquisition.

Accordingly, the determination should focus upon:

the nature of the claimant’s interest;

whether that interest is legally or equitably recognised;

whether compulsory acquisition affects or extinguishes it;

and

whether the statutory framework recognises the claimant as sufficiently connected with the acquisition proceedings.

Ultimately, the law seeks to balance:

the need to restrict acquisition proceedings to persons with genuine legal interests;

the protection of owners and security holders;

recognition of lessees, purchasers and option-holders;

protection of equitable and covenant-based interests;

proper treatment of creditors and other recognised claimants;

and

the fair allocation of compensation among those whose lawful interests have actually been affected by compulsory acquisition.