The 130-year-old Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple in Jalan Masjid India, which faces potential relocation after the land was sold to a private owner. - Social media pic, March 22, 2025
Secret or not, DBKL had every right to sell Masjid India land: Muslim lawyers
Response comes as activists push for 130-year-old temple to remain on site
Secret or not, DBKL had every right to sell Masjid India land: Muslim lawyers
Response comes as activists push for 130-year-old temple to remain on site
Scoop Reporters
Updated 2 hours ago
22 March, 2025
6:00 PM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR – The sale of land in Masjid India by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) cannot be questioned as it had the right to do so, said Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association adviser Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar.
Commenting on the controversy surrounding the relocation of the Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamman temple, he said DBKL had the legal authority to sell its holdings to any party without consulting others.
“The issue of DBKL secretly selling the land to a third party cannot be raised because DBKL has the power to sell its holdings to anyone it deems fit.
“The sale was made in good faith and for valuable consideration, which means the transaction is legitimate and cannot be undone,” he said in a statement today.
He also noted that under Malaysia’s National Land Code, which follows the Torrens system from Australia, a registered landowner holds an indisputable right over their property.
Updated 2 hours ago
22 March, 2025
6:00 PM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR – The sale of land in Masjid India by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) cannot be questioned as it had the right to do so, said Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association adviser Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar.
Commenting on the controversy surrounding the relocation of the Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamman temple, he said DBKL had the legal authority to sell its holdings to any party without consulting others.
“The issue of DBKL secretly selling the land to a third party cannot be raised because DBKL has the power to sell its holdings to anyone it deems fit.
“The sale was made in good faith and for valuable consideration, which means the transaction is legitimate and cannot be undone,” he said in a statement today.
He also noted that under Malaysia’s National Land Code, which follows the Torrens system from Australia, a registered landowner holds an indisputable right over their property.
Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association adviser Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar said DBKL had the legal authority to sell the land where the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple sits without consulting other parties. – Social media pic, March 22, 2025
“Other parties can be charged with trespassing if they do not obtain the registered owner’s permission,” he said.
Zainul also praised the registered owner’s assurance that the temple would not be demolished until relocation discussions were finalised. He said this demonstrated an Islamic principle of respecting the religious rights of non-Muslim communities.
He also drew a historical parallel, citing the example of Caliph Umar, who refused to perform prayers inside a church in Jerusalem to prevent Muslims from later converting it into a mosque.
“This is the beauty of Islam that must be appreciated,” he added.
On the matter of wakaf (Islamic endowment), he said the landowner’s intention to dedicate the land as wakaf property should be respected as a religious right.
“Once the wakaf instrument is completed, the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) will take over its administration as the trustee of wakaf assets in the Federal Territory.
“At the moment, the wakaf process has not been finalised,” he explained.
He urged all parties to allow the ongoing negotiations on the temple’s relocation to proceed without interference.
“Let the discussions continue. The landowner has the right to practise their faith, and this must be respected,” he said.
The issue arose after reports emerged that the 130-year-old Hindu temple on Jalan Masjid India might be relocated following the sale of the land to Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd in 2014.
Jakel has proposed building a mosque on the site and has offered to work with DBKL to find an alternative location for the temple, including financial assistance for a new temple’s construction. However, the temple management remains opposed to relocation and has called on DBKL to recognise its historical and communal significance.
Temple management representative and lawyer Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan argued that DBKL has a social responsibility to support the temple, given its 130-year history on the site.
She also claimed that the temple management was not informed about the land sale in 2014.
“When the land was sold, the temple management was not notified, even though we hold an equitable interest in the land,” she said.
Ambiga urged DBKL and the landowner to recognise this right, emphasising that the temple’s significance could not be ignored.
She also highlighted the longstanding coexistence of the Indian Muslim and Hindu communities in Masjid India and questioned why the government was now interfering in the matter.
Jakel has since assured that no demolition will take place, while discussions to find a solution continue, including a suggestion to reach a harmonious compromise that will see the 130-year-old Hindu temple and a new mosque coexist on the same plot of land. – March 22, 2025
“Other parties can be charged with trespassing if they do not obtain the registered owner’s permission,” he said.
Zainul also praised the registered owner’s assurance that the temple would not be demolished until relocation discussions were finalised. He said this demonstrated an Islamic principle of respecting the religious rights of non-Muslim communities.
He also drew a historical parallel, citing the example of Caliph Umar, who refused to perform prayers inside a church in Jerusalem to prevent Muslims from later converting it into a mosque.
“This is the beauty of Islam that must be appreciated,” he added.
On the matter of wakaf (Islamic endowment), he said the landowner’s intention to dedicate the land as wakaf property should be respected as a religious right.
“Once the wakaf instrument is completed, the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) will take over its administration as the trustee of wakaf assets in the Federal Territory.
“At the moment, the wakaf process has not been finalised,” he explained.
He urged all parties to allow the ongoing negotiations on the temple’s relocation to proceed without interference.
“Let the discussions continue. The landowner has the right to practise their faith, and this must be respected,” he said.
The issue arose after reports emerged that the 130-year-old Hindu temple on Jalan Masjid India might be relocated following the sale of the land to Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd in 2014.
Jakel has proposed building a mosque on the site and has offered to work with DBKL to find an alternative location for the temple, including financial assistance for a new temple’s construction. However, the temple management remains opposed to relocation and has called on DBKL to recognise its historical and communal significance.
Temple management representative and lawyer Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan argued that DBKL has a social responsibility to support the temple, given its 130-year history on the site.
She also claimed that the temple management was not informed about the land sale in 2014.
“When the land was sold, the temple management was not notified, even though we hold an equitable interest in the land,” she said.
Ambiga urged DBKL and the landowner to recognise this right, emphasising that the temple’s significance could not be ignored.
She also highlighted the longstanding coexistence of the Indian Muslim and Hindu communities in Masjid India and questioned why the government was now interfering in the matter.
Jakel has since assured that no demolition will take place, while discussions to find a solution continue, including a suggestion to reach a harmonious compromise that will see the 130-year-old Hindu temple and a new mosque coexist on the same plot of land. – March 22, 2025
***
kt comments:
Yes, DBKL had the legal authority to sell its holdings (land) which in reality belongs to the "people" including Hindus. Now, when there is a Hindu temple on the land, the least DBKL could have done was to consult the Hindus about the intended sale of the land, perhaps even giving them first purchase preference. Was that too difficult to understand?
If the reversed had occurred, Muslim land secretly sold to a non-Muslim corporation, there would be riots in the streets, legal or not.
ReplyDelete