Justice Noor Hisham Ismail said there was no decision made by the authorities which could be subjected to judicial review.

The property owners had named the Johor government, the state’s land and mines director and the Johor Bahru district land administrator as respondents in their application.

Noor Hisham also said he was obliged to follow a Federal Court ruling made in 2015.

“Based on the ruling, it appears that, with no Form E having been issued as prescribed by Section 10 Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA), there has yet to commence proceedings for land acquisition by the land administrator.

“That being the case, there would be no decision available from which a judicial review application could be mounted,” he said in a 36-page judgment delivered recently.

Form E is a notice of enquiry issued by the land administrator to the public in connection with an intended acquisition.

The judge said to rule otherwise would mean the court would be descending into “the realm of conjecture and artful guesswork”.

The applicants were seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the respondents’ decision for all lots identified under a Johor state gazette published on Jan 31, 2019.

They argued that the judicial review application was not premature since a notice had been issued under Section 4 of the LAA to determine the appropriateness of the acquisition after an evaluation.

They said the respondents’ action amounted to a “decision” which was amenable to judicial review.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended the application was premature as the land acquisition process under Section 8 of the LAA had yet to commence.

Noor Hisham also said the applicants were not competent to bring the action.

“This court having ruled above that the application for judicial review is premature, it means there is no decision to be reviewed. Accordingly, there is no one at this stage adversely affected by any decision made by the respondents,” he added.

The judge also rejected the applicants’ contention that the intended land acquisition was ultra vires the LAA 1960 since the acquisition was for the benefit of a private company.

“This court finds no illegality as alleged by the applicants since there is already a finding that was no ‘decision’ to be reviewed,” he added.

Lawyers Selwyn Vijayaran Das and S Selvarajah represented the applicants while senior federal counsel Azzam Zainal Abidin and federal counsel Suhana Sabil appeared for the respondents.

The applicants have filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.