Land Law 土地法

Land Law 土地法


Land law in Malaysia covers areas such as tenancies and leases, property ownership transfer and registration, charges and liens over land as security, land use and access, and the state’s right to compulsorily acquire land and pay compensation.

Some dealings with land that must be registered at the relevant land registry or office including Transfers, Leases (leases with a fixed tenure of more than three years), and easements (the legal right to cross or use someone else’s land for a particular purpose).

It should be noted that land law in the West Malaysia has slightly differences with the East Malaysia. Please seek for advice from professional lawyer from registered law firm if you have any inquiries.






Some differences between Land Law in West and East Malaysia 西⻢和东⻢的⼟地法的差异点

1.  Land Ownership (土地持有权)

In West Malaysia, the National Land Code 1965 governs land ownership. In East Malaysia, the states of Sabah and Sarawak have different land ownership laws.

⻢来西亚法律 “The National Land Code 1965” 是主要处理西⻢的⼟地持有权的法律,但是在相同的事宜,东⻢使⽤相对不同的法律。

2.  Language Requirements (语言规定)

In West Malaysia, documents that aren’t filed in the national language are considered null and void. In Sabah and Sarawak, documents that aren’t filed in English still can be considered.


3. Foreign Ownership(外国人资产持有权)

In Sarawak, foreigners can own land under certain conditions. Non-Sarawakians can also own mixed zone land, but not agricultural land.



Land Law Related Case 土地法实例

Amar Singh a/l Sundar Singh & Ors v Jivanjit Kaur d/o Sohan Singh [2010] 6 MLJ 771

The plaintiff, registered owner of a piece of land inherited from her late husband, faced a claim of proprietary estoppel from the first defendant, her late husband’s brother, over a portion of the land. The plaintiff demanded the eviction of the defendants from the claimed portion, but they refused, prompting legal action. The defendants asserted proprietary estoppel, claiming beneficial interests in the land. The trial judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting her vacant possession of the claimed portion. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial judge misinterpreted the facts and law regarding proprietary estoppel. The appeal was dismissed, with costs, affirming the trial judge’s decision.




Compiled by: Ngu Ley Hau

Supervised by: George Ngui