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.

 

⻢来西亚⼟地法律所涵盖的范围有，⼟地、房屋等的租赁，转移资产持有权或登记资产持有权，扣留令（扣留某⼈⼟地直⾄其偿清债务），⼟地使⽤权及通⾏权，州政府能以赔偿⾦的形式取得某⼟地以便于州发展。

但有些有关于⼟地交易的买卖需在⼟地局登记，其中包括转移持有资产，租赁合约（和相同的租客有超过三年的租约），地役权（在他⼈⼟地上的通⾏权或其他使⽤权）。

西⻢的⼟地法和东⻢的⼟地拥有些微差异，请您注意。若有任何疑问，请向专业的律师询问。

 

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.

在西⻢，任何⽂件都必须使⽤国⽂，任何使⽤其他语⾔的⽂件将不具有法律效⼒以及被视为⽆效。但是在东⻢，⽂件可使⽤英⽂或国语。

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.

在砂拉越，外国⼈可在特定的情况下拥有⾃已的产业。⾮砂拉越⼈⺠也可购买⼟地但⾮农业⽤地。

 

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.

原告是⼀块⼟地的注册所有⼈，该⼟地是从她已故的丈夫那⾥继承⽽来的。向第⼀被告，她已故丈夫的兄弟，提出诉讼。原告要求被告离开那块⼟地，但他们拒绝了，所以促使了法律诉讼。被告声称对⼟地有权益。审判法官对原告裁定⽀持，授予她⼟地部分的空置⽀配权。被告上诉，声称法庭对有关利益诉讼的事实和法律的解释错误。上诉被驳回，被告败诉，需承担诉讼费⽤，肯定了⼀审法官的裁决。