A three-member bench chaired by Justice S Nantha Balan said the foundation could not bring summary proceedings to repossess the land.
In broad grounds of judgment delivered yesterday, Nantha Balan said the issues in the dispute could only be resolved at trial.
“We are of the view that there was a misdirection by the High Court that warrants appellate intervention,” the judge said in allowing the appeal by the occupiers of the land.
They were appealing against a High Court ruling, made in 2023, which identified the residents as squatters and ordered them to vacate the premises within 18 months.
Also on the bench hearing the appeal were Justices Nazlan Ghazali and Ahmad Kamal Shahid.
Nantha Balan said one of the issues revolved around whether the government consented or acquiesced to the occupiers staying on the land, and whether the foundation had consented to it.
The foundation purchased the land from the federal territory’s land commissioner in 1979. However, the property was only registered in its name on Dec 4, 2002.
Nantha Balan noted that in 1989, the FT religious department confirmed the establishment of a committee for the congregation at Surau Madinah in Kampung Setia Jaya, which is situated on the land.
He also found that through a letter dated Nov 26, 2001, the Prime Minister’s Office approved a proposal for the supply of electricity to Kampung Setia Jaya.
The court also noted that the welfare committee of Kampung Wirajaya, another village located on the land, had in 1981 requested that the federal territories ministry construct poles for the supply of power to the village.
“The plaintiff (foundation) gave consent for Tenaga Nasional Bhd electricity poles to be erected on the land but placed outside the college fence and to be removed when the land is required for development,” he said.
Nantha Balan said these documents appear to suggest that the foundation may well have given its tacit approval for the occupiers to continue occupying the land until it is needed for development.
“But we emphasise that this is not a firm and absolute finding by this court. In our view, the Order 89 procedure was, in all the circumstances, unsuitable as a legal process to obtain vacant possession summarily,” he said.
The judge said that if the foundation is seeking the occupiers’ eviction, it must bring a writ action to establish its case.
He said the issue of estoppel, raised by the occupiers, would also need to be investigated at trial.