Citation: [2026] 4 MLRA 201
Court: Federal Court, Putrajaya
Judges: Abu Bakar Jais PCA, Rhodzariah Bujang, and Lee Swee Seng FCJJ
Date of Judgment: 1 April 2026
1. Brief Background Facts
On 20 November 2000, the Selangor State Executive Council (1st respondent) decided to de-gazette 406.22 hectares of the Bukit Cherakah Forest Reserve for development. Between 2001 and 2016, large portions of this land were alienated and developed into residential estates (notably Alam Budiman), commercial buildings, and educational institutions like UiTM.
In 2011, an amendment to the National Forestry Act (Adoption) Enactment 1985 introduced a mandatory requirement for a public inquiry prior to any de-gazettement. On 5 May 2022, the 1st respondent published a gazette notification formally notifying the de-gazettement of the land, specifying the effective date of cessation retrospectively as 20 November 2000.
The appellants, legal officers for environmental organisations established in 2010 (PEKA) and 2016 (SACF), applied for leave to commence judicial review. They sought to challenge the validity of the 2022 notification and argued that a public inquiry was a mandatory prerequisite that had been bypassed. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave, leading to this appeal.
2. Legal Issues
The Federal Court addressed several key questions of law:
- Locus Standi: Whether appellants have standing to challenge a de-gazettement decision made a decade before their organisations were legally incorporated.
- Limitation Period: Whether the three-month time limit for judicial review under Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 ran from the 2000 executive decision or the 2022 gazette publication.
- Retrospectivity: Whether the National Forestry Act 1984 and the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 permit de-gazettement notifications to operate retrospectively.
- Public Inquiry: Whether the 2011 statutory requirement for a public inquiry applied to a decision finalized in 2000 but formally notified in 2022.
3. Court’s Holding and Reasoning (Majority Decision)
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal (2-1), affirming the lower courts’ refusal of leave for judicial review.
A. Lack of Locus Standi
The majority held that the appellants lacked standing because they were not in existence in 2000 when the decision was made and thus had no rights or interests that could have been deprived at that material time. Furthermore, the court noted that a small group of “nature conservationists” could not displace the established rights of thousands of residents and students who had since occupied the developed land.
B. Application Out of Time
The Court ruled the application was filed over 20 years late. The limitation period commenced from the actual decision in 2000, not the formal notification in 2022. The “massive and visible” development on the land over two decades meant any interested party should have been aware of the land’s status change long before the 2022 gazette.
C. Validity of Retrospective Notification
The Court found that Section 13 of the National Forestry Act 1984 allows the State to fix a cessation date earlier than the notification itself. Additionally, Section 20 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 permits subsidiary legislation (including notifications) to operate retrospectively to the date of the parent Act’s commencement.
D. No Requirement for Public Inquiry
Since the decision was finalized in 2000, and the requirement for a public inquiry only came into force in May 2011, no such inquiry was legally necessary. The 2022 gazette was merely a formal administrative act to comply with statutory requirements for a decision already lawfully made.
4. Dissenting Opinion (Lee Swee Seng FCJ)
The dissenting judge argued that the limitation period should only run from the official communication of the decision to the public via the Gazette (5 May 2022), as the original 2000 decision was made privately. He further contended that “policy reasons” should not immunise public law decisions from judicial scrutiny and would have remitted the case to the High Court for a hearing on its merits.
5. Conclusion
The majority of the Federal Court concluded that the appellants failed to meet the threshold for leave. The decision reinforces that administrative decisions finalised and acted upon over decades are protected by principles of finality and certainty in public administration, particularly when significant third-party interests have accrued.
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified Advocate & Solicitor for your specific legal needs.
