Govt can keep land it got for $4.2m: Court
-
Published March 13, 2007
Govt can keep land it got for $4.2m: Court
Developer had sought return of land acquired in 1983 and now worth an estimated $100m
(SINGAPORE) The government does not have to return a $100 million plot of land to a property developer for the $4.2 million it paid the company to acquire the site in 1983, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Teng Fuh Holdings claimed it had suffered a great injustice because nothing had been done with the land since the government acquired it some 24 years ago.
Teng Fuh also said the land was zoned industrial when it was acquired but re-zoned residential in the 1993 Kallang Development Guide Plan, showing bad faith.
The developer said it did not know about the re-zoning until 2004 when it first appealed for the land to be returned.
The land, acquired for general redevelopment, is at 20-22 Geylang Road. It is now estimated to be worth about $100 million.
Teng Fuh was awarded $4.2 million compensation based on the market value of the land in 1973 - 10 years before the actual transaction. Teng Fuh has remained a tenant, paying rent of more than $21,000 a month. It is estimated to have paid more than $5.6 million in rent over the years.
The Appeal Court dismissed Teng Fuh's application on Friday, saying it was out of time. The application should have been made six months from the time it was declared in 1983 that the land was to be acquired for a public purpose, the court said.
Teng Fuh also did not account for the delay as it had 'the interest, the knowledge and the means to have acquired the information' to make its application 'long before' doing so in September 2005, the court said.
The re-zoning of the land under the 1993 guide plan was public information and accessible to anyone who wanted to know, it said. As Teng Fuh is 'actively engaged in property development', it 'should be aware' that land use zoning is 'liable to change' when 'land usage needs and planning policies change'.
The court said that had the application been made in time, Teng Fuh's action would have 'merited serious consideration'.
The court noted that the Urban Redevelopment Authority had not explained why the land was not redeveloped or why it was re-zoned. The collector of land revenue could have done more to explain what the land was intended for when it was acquired, when this was intended to take place, whether there were any subsequent changes to the plans, and if so, what the current plans are.
This prolonged inaction, if not explained, could constitute an arguable case of reasonable suspicion that the land was not needed for general redevelopment when acquired in 1983, the court said.
Teng Fuh was represented by Tan Kay Kheng and Aw Charmian of Wong Partnership. -
The Kangaroo Appeal Court
this part u write one har?
-
wasnt me.... taken from SB forums...Originally posted by Ito_^:this part u write one har? -
why am i not surprised?
-
Our legal system number 1 in the world. Don't play play, wait pay pay.
-
The plaintiff waited far too long....you cannot sue after all this time. The court is right: this action is defeated by the plaintiff's own incompetence.
-
Hmmz, sounds like a case of pulling technicallities to help cover their ass.
+ the fact that they filed the case late doesn't seem to merit throwing out the case because there was no actual stipulation quoted( of course there might be such a clause which i don't know about) on taking such actions otehr than the 6 months which wouldn't have been enough to go pull the case of not using the land thru. -
The judge was right in saying that the plaintiff could well have a valid case if they had brought it to court much earlier. There is a time limit beyond which you cannot bring an action. If someone made an illegal turning and knocked you down on the road, you have 3 years to sue under tort. It's 5 years for contract. For other issues, the time window is different. If you lose a case in court, you have to appeal within weeks. If you miss the deadline, your case will be thrown out of court even if you have all the evidence in the world on your side.Originally posted by hisoka:Hmmz, sounds like a case of pulling technicallities to help cover their ass.
+ the fact that they filed the case late doesn't seem to merit throwing out the case because there was no actual stipulation quoted( of course there might be such a clause which i don't know about) on taking such actions otehr than the 6 months which wouldn't have been enough to go pull the case of not using the land thru. -
But you missed the point. How would you know the govt had no use of the land until many years later. If he raises the suit 5 years after the incident, the govt can say they have use for it on the 6th year and so on.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The judge was right in saying that the plaintiff could well have a valid case if they had brought it to court much earlier. There is a time limit beyond which you cannot bring an action. If someone made an illegal turning and knocked you down on the road, you have 3 years to sue under tort. It's 5 years for contract. For other issues, the time window is different. If you lose a case in court, you have to appeal within weeks. If you miss the deadline, your case will be thrown out of court even if you have all the evidence in the world on your side.
It also raises a future point. The govt has the right to forcibly acquire the land, even if they had no use for the land or want to increase its land bank.
I dont study law, but isnt that an abuse of powers? -
u think u can take something out from a lion mouth
what other verdict u think will be given -
This is yet another fact to show how immoral it is for the government to become lawless itself by robbing people of lands and selling them at market prices with land sale profits conveniently stashed away in reserves while increasing taxes and spending them on loss-making overseas projects without accountability.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The judge was right in saying that the plaintiff could well have a valid case if they had brought it to court much earlier. There is a time limit beyond which you cannot bring an action. If someone made an illegal turning and knocked you down on the road, you have 3 years to sue under tort. It's 5 years for contract. For other issues, the time window is different. If you lose a case in court, you have to appeal within weeks. If you miss the deadline, your case will be thrown out of court even if you have all the evidence in the world on your side. -
as mentioned. you need time to see that the government not doing anything with the land. therefore the question of whether 3 years under tort or 5 years under contract is rether invalid given the circumstances of the governemnt acquiring an dnot using the land.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The judge was right in saying that the plaintiff could well have a valid case if they had brought it to court much earlier. There is a time limit beyond which you cannot bring an action. If someone made an illegal turning and knocked you down on the road, you have 3 years to sue under tort. It's 5 years for contract. For other issues, the time window is different. If you lose a case in court, you have to appeal within weeks. If you miss the deadline, your case will be thrown out of court even if you have all the evidence in the world on your side.
+ there is still the question of the government abusing powers to acquire land and not using it for stated purposes or even not using it.
in addition the points you mentioned only serve to quote further examples of problems with our legal system -
The time limit under contract and tort was raised as an illustration that legal action has a time window. This case has nothing to tort or contract. As the court pointed out, the plaintiff could have challenged the government to show cause as to why they had to acquire their land within 6 months of the notice, but they did not.Originally posted by hisoka:as mentioned. you need time to see that the government not doing anything with the land. therefore the question of whether 3 years under tort or 5 years under contract is rether invalid given the circumstances of the governemnt acquiring an dnot using the land.
+ there is still the question of the government abusing powers to acquire land and not using it for stated purposes or even not using it.
in addition the points you mentioned only serve to quote further examples of problems with our legal system
The judge clearly disapproved of the prolonged inaction on the part of the government, which indeed suggests that the relevant authorities had abused its powers under the Act. I agree that there is a prima facie case which the government should explain. Since the plaintiff cannot legitimately raise the issue now that they have run out of time (and the court is right in this decision), Opposition Party MPs should raise this in another court, the Parliament.
Will the Opposition Party MPs do their job for once? This is a valid issue on which to take the government to task. Let's see if Opposition Party MPs are worth anything at all... -
That is a sweeping statement. As I have mentioned in my previous post, I agree the prolonged inaction of the authorities in this case is suspicious and they should be taken to task. I await to hear the Opposition Party raise this in Parliament.Originally posted by robertteh:This is yet another fact to show how immoral it is for the government to become lawless itself by robbing people of lands and selling them at market prices with land sale profits conveniently stashed away in reserves while increasing taxes and spending them on loss-making overseas projects without accountability.
However, you are trying to tarnish the entire land acquisition system with one dubious case. Land acquired by the government is remunerated at the market rate according to law.
If the private landowner had not done anything on the land apart from a few coconut trees, obviously the market rate for the land will be low. Once the land has been acquired and the government has developed infrastructure around it, built an MRT station next to it and surrounded it with schools, shopping malls, sports complexes and polyclinics; no doubt the value of the land will rise. It is not wrong to sell the land at the new market price to developers. It would not be responsible to sell it at the old price when millions of taxpayers money have been spent to improve the infrastructure. The monies paid out to the government can then be used for other public projects. Ultimately, the government's funds are taxpayers' money as well. -
You cannot. That is why the plaintiff's lawyers should have made representation challenging the government to show cause as to why acquisition was necessary, its purpose and future plans. That ties the government down. They cannot sit on it thereafter for years and they cannot then re-zone it to residential land (which is more valuable) after having assured the court that it was meant for general use.Originally posted by kilua:But you missed the point. How would you know the govt had no use of the land until many years later. If he raises the suit 5 years after the incident, the govt can say they have use for it on the 6th year and so on.
In fact, the judge went so far as to suggest what the plaintiff should have done:
"The court noted that the Urban Redevelopment Authority had not explained why the land was not redeveloped or why it was re-zoned. The collector of land revenue could have done more to explain what the land was intended for when it was acquired, when this was intended to take place, whether there were any subsequent changes to the plans, and if so, what the current plans are."
Why didn't the plaintiff initiate an action in 1983? If a big piece of land is being acquired by the government, wouldn't you consult your lawyers to fight it in the courts until all legal avenues are exhausted? If the plaintiff had consulted lawyers at the time, they were given poor advice and they can well sue their lawyers for compensation.
No, they cannot do that. They must show cause as to why the land was needed (that's why you need to get a lawyer to fight it). The compensation scheme has also changed now. The government also has to consider not just the value of the land but also the future potential of the land in determining compensation. Such a case is therefore unlikely to recur in future land acquisitions.Originally posted by kilua:It also raises a future point. The govt has the right to forcibly acquire the land, even if they had no use for the land or want to increase its land bank. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
If there is a time bar for righting an injustice on a civil matter of such magnitude, will the Singapore Law allow a criminal to escape justice after similar time bar - perhaps a time bar after 24 years of successfully eluding capture ?
The judge was right in saying that the plaintiff could well have a valid case if they had brought it to court much earlier. There is a time limit beyond which you cannot bring an action. If someone made an illegal turning and knocked you down on the road, you have 3 years to sue under tort. It's 5 years for contract. For other issues, the time window is different. If you lose a case in court, you have to appeal within weeks. If you miss the deadline, your case will be thrown out of court even if you have all the evidence in the world on your side. -
You certainly have the ability to recognise 'sweeping statements' - after expertly making so many of your own.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Originally posted by robertteh:
This is yet another fact to show how immoral it is for the government to become lawless itself by robbing people of lands and selling them at market prices with land sale profits conveniently stashed away in reserves while increasing taxes and spending them on loss-making overseas projects without accountability.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a sweeping statement. As I have mentioned in my previous post, I agree the prolonged inaction of the authorities in this case is suspicious and they should be taken to task. I await to hear the Opposition Party raise this in Parliament.
Unfortunately, your sweeping statements are hollow and not based on facts, compared to the statement made by robertteh - in the paragraph that you have quoted above - which is based on fact.
Is there any point for the Opposition Party to raise this matter in Parliament, when you have expertly determined that the matter is clearly due the ineptitude of the plaintiff; and at the same time make contradictory claims that there is suspicious elements in the matter, while agreeing with the judge in throwing the plaintiff's suit out due to the extreme passage of time ?
Is it a surprise that you can recognise your own evil work in the efforts made by others ?
However, you are trying to tarnish the entire land acquisition system with one dubious case. Land acquired by the government is remunerated at the market rate according to law.
Have you not indulge in such effort of tarnishing the 'majority of Singaporeans' - when you are unable to substantiate the number of abusive Singaporeans that you will wish to be in your acclaimed 'majority' ?
Did roberteh tarnish the entire land acquisition system with one 'dubious case' in the manner that you have tarnished the entire Singaporean population with one similarly 'dubious case' ?
Or is robertteh justified in his statement that the land acquisition system is in fact immoral - in that "it showed the government to become lawless itself by robbing people of lands and selling them at market prices" ?
Are you disputing this statement of fact ?
If you believe that - " Land acquired by the government is remunerated at the market rate according to law" - was it necessary and correct for you to state in your next response - "The compensation scheme has also changed now. The government also has to consider not just the value of the land but also the future potential of the land in determining compensation. " ?
You could have been more honest if you did not omit the fact that the compensation scheme will be changed by also relooking into the valuation based on PREVAILING market rates, as well as future potential of the land in determining the compensation.
Unfortunately, with you residing in UK, we could excuse your ignorance of the report carried in the local media.If the private landowner had not done anything on the land apart from a few coconut trees, obviously the market rate for the land will be low. Once the land has been acquired and the government has developed infrastructure around it, built an MRT station next to it and surrounded it with schools, shopping malls, sports complexes and polyclinics; no doubt the value of the land will rise. It is not wrong to sell the land at the new market price to developers. It would not be responsible to sell it at the old price when millions of taxpayers money have been spent to improve the infrastructure. The monies paid out to the government can then be used for other public projects. Ultimately, the government's funds are taxpayers' money as well.
Are you not stating the obvious ?
Is the current dispute centered on your simplistic elaboration of the situation, or have you again missed the core of the plaintiff's interest ?
You will be well credited by the majority of Singaporeans if the Government believe in your naive and gullible belief that - "Ultimately, the government's funds are taxpayers' money as well.".
Since when has the government's funds been considered taxpayers' money - when even the Elected President has no executive authority even to enquire to the size and status of the National Reserves ? -
When there is a case of our ex-elected president not being given access to exercise his elected duty to ask for greater accountability on the hidden assets and when there is a souzhou and a nkf and a shin corp where government was clearly seen as lawless and refusing to be held accountable for mistakes and losses, people will be slowly losing confidence in the whole system of government.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That is a sweeping statement. As I have mentioned in my previous post, I agree the prolonged inaction of the authorities in this case is suspicious and they should be taken to task. I await to hear the Opposition Party raise this in Parliament.
However, you are trying to tarnish the entire land acquisition system with one dubious case. Land acquired by the government is remunerated at the market rate according to law.
If the private landowner had not done anything on the land apart from a few coconut trees, obviously the market rate for the land will be low. Once the land has been acquired and the government has developed infrastructure around it, built an MRT station next to it and surrounded it with schools, shopping malls, sports complexes and polyclinics; no doubt the value of the land will rise. It is not wrong to sell the land at the new market price to developers. It would not be responsible to sell it at the old price when millions of taxpayers money have been spent to improve the infrastructure. The monies paid out to the government can then be used for other public projects. Ultimately, the government's funds are taxpayers' money as well.
Government is now further exposed to more scandals as more cases of lack of accountability (lawlessness) like this geylang land being acquired cheap pretentiously for but not put to public use are being reported.
The foreign newspapers and internet will be carrying such news even if our own newspapers are being silenced on such cases.
Now the real issue in people's mind is whether such a top-down lawless system of "I will do as I like and you could rant as you like" will work any more. -
"If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?"
- Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, 21 Sept 1955
A government which looks after the majority's interest will not be one which is trying to keep itself in power and promoting its own talents with ever-increasing salaries and benefits while the majority is left to suffer dropping wages and struggling to make ends meet.
By his own policies and actions is he practising what he preached? -
The only word I could describe the both parties.....they are not angels either!!!
