End of suit by Raub durian farmers against state govt, others
Yesterday
Ho Kit Yen
The farmers’ lawyer, Brendan Navin Siva, tells the appellate court that his clients will not be pursuing their appeal
The Court of Appeal ordered the Raub durian farmers to pay the Pahang government and state agency Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Pahang RM4,000 each in costs.
PUTRAJAYA: The legal dispute between Raub durian farmers, the Pahang government, and other parties over eviction notices came to an end today.
A Court of Appeal bench chaired by Justice Lim Chong Fong struck out the farmers’ appeals after their lawyer, Brendan Navin Siva, informed the court that they would not be pursuing the case.
Also on the bench were Justices Firuz Jaffril and Ismail Brahim.
Brendan said some respondents, such as the state government and state agency Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Pahang (PKPP), were seeking costs.
State assistant legal adviser Abdul Hafiz Razat said the Pahang government was seeking RM80,000 for work related to the appeal.
Lim noted that the farmers had previously filed stay applications, which were dismissed, but that the court did not order them to pay any costs at the time.
PKPP’s lawyer Fairuz Abdullah also said the agency was seeking the same quantum.
“We leave it to the court’s discretion regarding the sum,” he added.
Lim then ordered the farmers to pay RM4,000 each to the state government and PKPP.
On April 24 last year, the Kuantan High Court dismissed the farmers’ judicial review application challenging the Pahang government’s decision to evict them from farms in Raub, including areas in Sungai Ruan, Sungai Chalit and Sungai Klau.
The court concluded that the farmers were encroaching on the land and had no legal or equitable rights, and that the state government’s eviction order was not malicious.
The farmers had indicated their intention to withdraw their appeal earlier this year.
A Court of Appeal bench chaired by Justice Lim Chong Fong struck out the farmers’ appeals after their lawyer, Brendan Navin Siva, informed the court that they would not be pursuing the case.
Also on the bench were Justices Firuz Jaffril and Ismail Brahim.
Brendan said some respondents, such as the state government and state agency Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Pahang (PKPP), were seeking costs.
State assistant legal adviser Abdul Hafiz Razat said the Pahang government was seeking RM80,000 for work related to the appeal.
Lim noted that the farmers had previously filed stay applications, which were dismissed, but that the court did not order them to pay any costs at the time.
PKPP’s lawyer Fairuz Abdullah also said the agency was seeking the same quantum.
“We leave it to the court’s discretion regarding the sum,” he added.
Lim then ordered the farmers to pay RM4,000 each to the state government and PKPP.
On April 24 last year, the Kuantan High Court dismissed the farmers’ judicial review application challenging the Pahang government’s decision to evict them from farms in Raub, including areas in Sungai Ruan, Sungai Chalit and Sungai Klau.
The court concluded that the farmers were encroaching on the land and had no legal or equitable rights, and that the state government’s eviction order was not malicious.
The farmers had indicated their intention to withdraw their appeal earlier this year.
***
Reminds me of my late grandpa and the land he cultivated in Batu Kawan. The piece of jungle he cleared with his own muscles and back-breaking toil, tears and sweat, and then turned into a minor rubber farm plus vegetable growing & a wee bit of animal husbandry had legally belong to a (so-called) "relative". Grandpa wanted to buy the land but was assured by his 'kakinang' not to worry over 'minor' details and to go on working that land as if it was his (grandpa's), and for the 'finer details' to come about later.
It ended up like what the Raub durian farmers had experienced - initial friendly (post federal govt's) "invitation & encouragement" to grow (open up the rural areas) became "frigg off, you have encroached on MY land and have no legal or equitable rights" (once the products became obviously valuable to the 'owner') - grandpa was broken hearted but no legal paperwork, eat shit man.
That's the brutal reality of property rights - if you are not the landowner, unless you have a written contract giving you permission like rental or lease to temporarily utilise the land, you have little or no legal protection for anything you do on that land.
ReplyDeleteNo point bitching about Evil landowners.
Itu lah. Same law applies everywhere. Isaac’s who legally purchased land under Ottoman and later British Mandate laws are the legal owners. Not one square cubit was stolen from Arabs. They have all the Gerans to prove it. It doesn’t matter if trespassers plant musang king or olives on it. The land is not yours. Never Was and Never Will Be.
ReplyDeleteBut land conquered after 1948 when attacked by five Arab armies who are defeated are “spoils of war”. Losers of wars they started lose land.
"Not one square cubit was stolen from Arabs" - wakakaka, you're such a kerbau and a shailok macai
ReplyDeleteFrom Chat GPT:
ReplyDeleteLand Ownership Before 1948: As of 1947, Jewish individuals and organizations owned approximately 6% of the total land area of Palestine. Arab Palestinians privately owned more, with the vast majority of the remaining land being "state land" which passed from the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate government.
Methods of Acquisition:
Purchases: A significant amount of the land acquired by Jewish organizations (such as the Jewish National Fund) was legally purchased from large Arab landowners, often at high prices, during the British Mandate period. These sales were legal under the prevailing Ottoman and British Mandate land laws.
Displacement and Abandonment: A major change in land status occurred during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. A large portion of the Arab population was displaced, either fleeing the violence or being expelled. The new State of Israel then enacted laws, such as the "Absentee Property Law," which allowed the state to take over the land and property of these refugees, legally transferring their private property to state ownership.
Legal Mechanisms: The British Mandate government reclassified vast areas of "waste land" (mawat) as "state land". After 1948 Israeli legal interpretations of these ordinances facilitated the transfer of land, to state and subsequently Jewish ownership.
Perspectives on "Stolen":
Palestinian Perspective: From the Palestinian viewpoint, the land was indeed "stolen" through a combination of forced displacement during war and subsequent retroactive laws designed specifically to prevent them from returning and reclaiming their properties.
Israeli Perspective: The counter-argument is that land was acquired through legitimate purchases or, in the case of "absentee property," legally transferred to the state when owners fled during wartime. This perspective often emphasizes that the land was legally bought and not "robbed".
In summary, land was acquired through both voluntary legal sales and non-voluntary displacement followed by legal mechanisms that transferred ownership to the state.
ooop… never ever learn that ChatGPT produces garbage essay from its DB of related fart
DeleteThere is extensive evidence of Jewish land purchases from Arab landowners in Palestine during the British Mandate, primarily through institutions like the Jewish National Fund (JNF) buying large tracts from wealthy, often absentee, Arab magnates like the Sursocks, acquiring swampy or uncultivated land, which formed territorial nuclei for Jewish settlement but often led to displacement of Arab tenant farmers, documented by British reports and contemporary accounts.
ReplyDeleteSources: British Mandate records (Survey of Palestine), UN documents, Peel Commission Reports, and historical accounts detail these transactions.
Major Buyers: Jewish entities like the JNF, Palestine Land Development Co., and PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association) were key purchasers.
Sellers: Large, wealthy Arab families (often absentee landlords residing in Damascus or Beirut) sold vast areas, including the fertile Jezreel Valley.
Type of Land: Much land was swampy, rocky, or uncultivable, which Arabs were willing to sell for high prices, while Jewish pioneers introduced new farming methods.
Impact on Tenants: Land purchases often resulted in the eviction of Arab tenant farmers (fellahin) who lived on the land, though some received compensation or resettlement, as noted by the Peel Commission.
Scale of Purchases: By 1947, Jews owned roughly 1.5 to 1.85 million dunams (about 150,000-185,000 hectares) through these transactions, forming the basis for later state boundaries.
Controversy: While legally transacted under Mandate law, these purchases became a major source of Arab-Jewish conflict, with Palestinians viewing them as undermining their national aspirations.
Examples
Sursock Purchases: Massive sales of land in the Jezreel Valley by the Sursock family, leading to the displacement of about 20-25 villages.
In essence, Jewish land acquisition was a documented, legal process involving sales from Arab owners, significantly impacting demographics and territorial claims leading up to 1948, according to UN records and British Mandate data, says Wikipedia.
look at the sheer robbery in the west bank
DeleteTenants, or simply squatters occupying land that has been sold have to move, if the new owners want the land for some other purpose. If I buy a house that is tenanted (or simply squatted), I have the right to either continue the tenancy or evict. Itu Biasa.
ReplyDeleteIf I abandon my property and move to another country while waging war then I have no "Right of Return" if I lose that war. The winner gets to enjoy the Spoils.
ReplyDeleteso, mfer, yell that to yr zionist idol lah
DeleteRaub Farmers cultivated jungle land at the invitation and encouragement of the federal govt to "open up land" during the Emergency. No officials bothered about them and their 'farms' until MUSANG KING DURIANS become the new "gold'. Then greed stepped in
ReplyDelete