Kg Chubadak Conned?

40 years in limbo, residents turn to Pak Lah
Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
Apr 26, 06 6:58pm

Four decades ago, residents of Kampung Chubadak Tambahan in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur were promised titles to their plots of land. But until today, not all of them have received it.
The affected residents are now in a quandary due to plans to expand the Kuala Lumpur-Karak highway and this could lead to the demolishment of their houses.
This morning, some 100 residents took their grouses to the doorstep of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s office in Putrajaya. They handed a memorandum to his aide.
“We are asking for land or compensation that is reasonable and just,” said resident Ahmad Amirudin Kamarudin when contacted later.
The residents, he said, are also asking Abdullah to set up an independent body to look into and confirm minutes of a state executive council meeting held on Jan 10, 1976, that had approved their rights over the land.
Despite such official knowledge and approval of their lengthy residence, the residents claimed that the land had been registered under numerous other parties.
“On Oct 26, 1985, ownership over land encompassing Kg Chubadak Tambahan was registered to STLR Sdn Bhd and subsequently transferred to Sentul Murni.
“Residents also discovered that the Malay reserve status of Kg Chubadak Tambahan had been revoked through Gazette Notification No 4851/1932,” said Amirudin.
Court decision
In 1993, they were in for another rude shock when the residents had been named as respondents to a Kuala Lumpur High Court civil filed by Sentul Murni, which accused some of them as trespassers.
Sentul Murni had also filed for vacant possession of Kg Chubadak Tambahan and damages for trespassing, interest and costs.
Five years later, the high court ruled that the villagers were not ‘squatters simpliciter’ but by the consent of the state authority were licensed to reside in Kg Chubadak Tambahan.
Although the high court judge granted vacant possession to Sentul Murni, the company was ordered to compensate the respondents.
The court also rejected the appellant’s claim for special damages. This decision was upheld on Aug 21, 200 by the court of appeal.