_ZHD-7_20251007145708_APP_0.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
PUTRAJAYA (Oct 2): Berjaya Hills Resorts Bhd has filed leave to appeal to the Federal Court, over the Court of Appeal’s decision on July 16, which had ruled that state governments have the authority to determine quit rent rates without having to obtain approval from the National Land Council (NLC).
The leave hearing is scheduled to be heard on Dec 8.
Leave (permission) has to first be obtained for civil cases at the Federal Court, to ensure that the appellant's appeal is based on questions of law and are not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process.
In court documents filed by Berjaya Hills through Messrs Chuar Kia Lin sighted by The Edge, 12 questions of law are being posed before the apex court, which will decide on whether to grant leave or otherwise.
The matter came up as the Pahang government had reportedly forfeited 122 parcels of land owned by Berjaya Hills in Bukit Tinggi on Sept 28, following the purported failure of the company to settle RM70 million in quit rent rates.
On Thursday (Oct 1), Berita Harian had quoted Pahang state enforcement head unit Saifullah Muhammad Ali as saying that the 122 parcels of land had been seized following arrears in the non-payment of the land tax.
Among the properties seized are workers quarters, rabbit farm, Japanese farm, and other facilities which are on the land.
“A total of 122 parcels of land have been forfeited, and permanent structures (real property) have been vacated and locked,” he said.
The original dispute arose after the Pahang government introduced revised quit rent rates under the Pahang Land (Amendment) (No 3) Rules 2019, which came into force on Jan 1, 2020. In 2023, the Pahang Land and Mines Department imposed the higher rates and applied them retrospectively to 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Temporary stay obtained from Temerloh High Court
However, Chuar, who appeared at the Temerloh High Court on Sept 29, said his client had obtained an ad interim (temporary) stay over the seizure.
He explained that on Aug 14, Berjaya Hills had filed five motions seeking leave from the Federal Court to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s July 16 decision.
The state government had increased the quantum of quit rent for 330 parcels of land with effect from 2020.
“Prior to September 2025, the company had paid approximately RM42 million in quit rent charges in respect of 208 parcels of land.
“Between September 2025 and November 2025, the company filed three suits at the Temerloh High Court, challenging the validity of the forfeiture proceedings in respect of 122 parcels of land where RM70 million of quit rent has been imposed against these lands,” Chuar said in a statement to The Edge.
Chuar said the three suits are challenging the validity of the State’s forfeiture proceedings and remain pending before the Temerloh High Court.
“Accordingly, the forfeiture proceedings have yet to be conclusively and finally determined.
“On Sept 28, the Pahang government proceeded with enforcement action against the company’s premises. This included the sealing of the buildings comprising the staff quarters, central laundry, rabbit park, and Japanese garden. The enforcement action was carried out one day before the hearing of my client’s application for an ad interim stay.
“The High Court granted an ad interim stay in favour of my client, staying all enforcement and execution action and/or proceedings by Pahang, pursuant to Sections 100 and 130 of the National Land Code, pending the disposal of the company’s substantive stay application, which is fixed for hearing on Nov 27 this year.”
The lawyer added that the High Court had further ordered the reversal of the enforcement action against Berjaya Hills premises.
“This included the unsealing of the buildings, comprising the staff quarters, central laundry, rabbit park, and Japanese garden, as well as the restoration of the water supply.
“The Pahang authorities have fully complied with the court’s order before 1pm on Sept 30. All chains and padlocks installed during the enforcement action were removed. The affected buildings were fully unsealed, and access was restored. The water supply and related utilities were also restored,” Chuar added.
He also shared a video link over the removal of the padlock here.
Not the NLC function, appellate bench ruled
On July 16, a three-member COA bench, led by newly-elevated Federal Court judge Datuk P Ravinthran, along with Datuk Choo Kah Sing and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin, upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the Berjaya Hills and related companies’ appeals over increased quit rents for 330 land parcels in Bentong, Pahang.
The companies had filed a judicial review on Aug 19, 2024, to challenge the Pahang Land and Mines director’s decision to increase quit rents. After the High Court rejected their challenge, they filed an appeal.
The companies argued that the revised rates were invalid because the Pahang government had not obtained prior approval from the NLC under Section 101(5) of the National Land Code.
However, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's earlier decision, ruling that the NLC's role is to formulate national land policy and advise the federal and state governments, not to approve or scrutinise individual states' quit rent rates.
The bench further ruled that Section 14(1)(e) of the National Land Code grants state authorities the power to determine rent rates, while Section 101(3) allows them to increase or reduce payable rents, introduce different rates for different classes of land, or impose new rent rates.
Choo, who wrote the unanimous decision, said any approval required from the NLC under Section 101(5) relates only to the timing of a state's rent revision exercise, not the amount of the revised rates.
He said the NLC’s role is to formulate national land policies and advise governments on the administration of the National Land Code, rather than approve individual states’ quit rent rates.
In this case, Choo said that during the 70th National Land Council Meeting held on Aug 18, 2014, the NLC advised state governments to consider revising their respective rent rates. The council also approved the revision exercise, noting that the last review was conducted in 2004, and recommended that reviews be carried out every 10 years.
“This court is of the considered view that it is not the duty or function of the NLC to approve the revised rent rates of each state as suggested by the appellants’ counsel. The revised rent rates are to be determined by the respective state governments in accordance with the power conferred under Section 14(1)(e) of the National Land Code,” the judge added.
“There is no provision in the National Land Code that suggests any revised rent rates to be reserved and determined by the state authority must be approved by the NLC,” Choo said.