KUALA LUMPUR – Kuala Lumpur Community Preservation Benefits Union (KLRA+SD) has filed a constitutional challenge at the High Court against provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA), arguing that the law fails to provide adequate safeguards for property owners facing compulsory land acquisition.
In a statement today, the group, which represents 74 residents’ associations, six non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and a higher education institution in Kuala Lumpur, said the challenge raised fundamental questions about property rights, procedural fairness and the limits of the state’s power to acquire private property.
It comes amid concerns over forced displacement linked to urban development and redevelopment.
A key issue raised in the challenge is the lack of a meaningful opportunity for affected property owners to object and be heard before their land is acquired.
KLRA+SD said this could contravene the principles of natural justice, which require individuals to be given a fair opportunity to present their case before decisions affecting their rights are made.
“This safeguard is the essence of Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law,” the statement read.
The group also questioned Section 3(1) of the LAA, which allows land to be acquired for purposes including facilitating the enterprise of private companies.
KLRA+SD argued that compulsory acquisition should be limited to genuine public purposes or national interests, rather than being used to benefit private companies under the guise of public interest.
“KLRA+SD stands unyielding in its belief that the power to compulsorily acquire private property must be exercised only for a genuine public purpose or national interest,” it said.
The group further contended that Section 3(1), in its current form and interpretation, raised concerns over arbitrariness and unfairness and could be incompatible with Articles 13(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Article 13(1) protects property rights, while Article 8(1) guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
KLRA+SD said the existing legal framework should provide more than financial compensation to affected property owners, calling for a comprehensive process that ensures fairness and constitutional protection.
“The State’s exercise of its power to take private property must be credibly seen as broadly serving the public interest, and affected persons must be treated fairly through a just process,” it said.
The group added that compulsory land acquisition should not be treated as an unrestricted exercise of government power, particularly when urban redevelopment threatens to displace communities.
Through the legal challenge, KLRA+SD is seeking to uphold the Federal Constitution and ensure that compulsory acquisition powers are exercised in accordance with natural justice, equality and the rule of law.
It is also seeking appropriate relief from the court, including declarations that the challenged provisions of the LAA are invalid, and has called on the public to support its efforts.
The challenge comes after lawyer and Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) commissioner Derek Fernandez called for the repeal of Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) of the LAA on October 18, arguing that compulsory land acquisition should be restricted to genuine public purposes, such as essential public utilities, rather than private commercial development.
Speaking during a panel discussion at the launch of Mark Trowell’s book ‘LOT 1208: Reforming Malaysia’s Land Seizure Laws’ on October 18, Fernandez warned that the existing provisions gave state authorities broad powers to acquire land for projects involving private companies and commercial interests.
Fernandez also raised concerns over the enforcement of Section 3(6) of the Act, which restricts certain acquisitions where landowners have already obtained planning approval and the acquisition is not for public utilities.
He said preliminary acquisition notices could leave property owners in uncertainty, affecting their ability to sell or redevelop their land, or negotiate over its future.
Fernandez urged affected communities to consider collective legal action and said alternatives, such as joint ventures or equity participation with developers, should be explored to protect landowners’ interests. – October 29, 2026