Court: Acquisition for MRT project at Ampang Park lawful

mrt,ampang-park

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here today dismissed an application for a judicial review by 39 strata owners and tenants of the Ampang Park Shopping Centre here to challenge the land acquisition for the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Ampang park station.

Judge Hanipah Farikullah made the decision after finding that the approval given by the Federal Territories Land and Mines Director (first respondent) and the Federal Territories Land Administrator (second respondent) for the land acquisition was made according to stipulated laws.

In the judgment, Hanipah said he agreed with the submission by Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Sdn Bhd (MRT Corp), which was named the third respondent, that the objective of the land acquisition was for safety.

The land acquisition by the government was lawful and intended to make the project more efficient, he added.

Following which, he ordered the strata owners and tenants to pay total costs of RM70,000 to the respondents — RM35,000 to the Federal Territories Land and Mines Director and the Federal Territories Land Administrator, and RM35,000 to MRT Corp.

Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, represented the Federal Territories Land and Mines Director and the Federal Territories Land Administrator, while Robert Lazar represented MRT Corp.

Lawyers Edward Ng Boon Seong and Jason Ng Kau represented the 39 strata-title holders and tenants of the Ampang Park Shopping Centre.

The owners of the business premises at the Ampang Park Shopping Centre had filed the application on Jan 8 this year, also naming the Federal Territories Ministry and the Malaysian government as respondents.

However, on Jan 20, the group dropped the Federal Territories Ministry and the Malaysian Government as respondents in the judicial review application.

They had sought a declaration that the Form D, dated Aug 17, 2015, and Form E, dated Oct 22, 2015, under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 issued by the respondents were unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.

Last April 18, the High Court allowed MRT’s application to be an intervenor in the application and named as a respondent.

Meanwhile, Ng, told reporters after the proceeding that he had received instruction to appeal against the decision.

BERNAMA