Someone Has Lived on Your Land for 40 Years — Can You Still Get It Back?

# Someone Has Lived on Your Land for 40 Years — Can You Still Get It Back?

Imagine discovering that a group of people has been living on your land for decades.

They have built houses. They have electricity and water. Some of the occupants may have been there since childhood, while others inherited or took over the houses from their parents.

Can they argue that they have acquired a right to remain simply because they have occupied the land for so long?

A Malaysian High Court case involving Kampung Chim Lee in Kuala Lumpur examined almost exactly this situation.

In Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Tan Poh Wah & Ors [2018] 11 MLJ 198, the High Court considered whether long-term occupants of land had acquired any legal right, title, interest or equitable entitlement that could prevent the registered owner from obtaining vacant possession.

The court ultimately found that the occupants were squatters and ordered them to give up possession of the land.

The case is particularly useful for landowners because it shows an important distinction:

> Long-term occupation is not automatically the same as legal ownership or a legal right to remain on land.

The defendants were occupants of houses and other structures at Kampung Chim Lee.

Many of the houses had been constructed in the late 1970s. Some of the present occupants were descendants of the people who originally occupied the land.

According to the defendants, they and their ancestors had been relocated to the area by a tin-mining company when the company required the land they had previously occupied for mining activities.

Their entry onto the land was therefore not presented as a conventional case of people secretly entering someone else's property and immediately setting up camp.

The occupants argued that their original relocation had been facilitated by the mining company and had occurred with the knowledge or acquiescence of the relevant authorities.

Over the years, they built permanent brick and wooden structures and obtained supplies of water and electricity.

This created an important factual question:

> If the authorities knew about the occupation for decades and utilities were supplied to the occupants, did that mean the occupants had a legal right to remain?

The court said it did not.

The first plaintiff, Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur (DBKL), became the registered owner of the land on 18 May 2016.

DBKL subsequently entered into an agreement with the second plaintiff, a developer, for the development of the land.

The proposed development included an affordable housing project and commercial development.

However, the existing houses and structures occupied by the defendants prevented the project from proceeding as planned.

The plaintiffs therefore sought, among other things:

• vacant possession of the land;
• removal and demolition of the structures;
• declarations that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the land; and
• damages.

The occupants resisted the claim and argued that their long history on the land gave rise to rights, interests, legitimate expectations or equitable considerations.

The central issue was not simply:

> "Have these people lived there for a long time?"

The court had to determine:

> "What legal right, if any, did the occupants have to remain on the land?"

This distinction was critical.

The court acknowledged that the occupants had been there for many years and that authorities and utility agencies had been aware of their presence.

But knowledge of occupation is not necessarily the same thing as granting a legal right to occupy.

# Why Did the Court Consider Them Squatters?

Justice Nantha Balan examined the documentary and factual evidence surrounding the occupation.

One important factor was that contemporary documents referred to the settlement as a squatter area.

There was also no evidence that the occupants held registered title to the land.

The court found no evidence that the occupants had been granted a Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) or another recognised legal right to occupy the land.

The occupants also had not been paying quit rent or rent to the relevant land authority.

The court therefore concluded that the evidence pointed strongly towards their status as squatters.

Importantly, the judge made a distinction between the manner in which the occupants originally entered the land and their legal status afterwards.

The court did not find that their initial entry had necessarily been clandestine or forceful.

Instead, the entry in the 1970s had apparently occurred with the involvement of the mining company and the knowledge or acquiescence of authorities and utility providers.

Nevertheless, that did not transform the occupation into registered ownership or another legally recognised interest.

# What About Living There for 40 Years?

This was one of the most important aspects of the case.

The occupants had been on the land for decades.

Some had built substantial structures using their own money.

Water and electricity had been supplied.

The authorities knew they were there.

It might therefore seem reasonable to assume that such a long period of occupation would eventually create some form of ownership.

The court did not accept that proposition.

The fact that the occupants had:

• lived on the land for many years;
• constructed houses;
• improved the property;
• received utilities; and
• remained there with the apparent knowledge of the authorities

did not, by itself, establish a legal right or ownership interest in the land.

This is the key lesson for landowners:

> Physical occupation and legal ownership are two different things.

A person can physically occupy land for a very long time without becoming the registered proprietor.

# What About the Electricity and Water Supply?

This is an especially practical point.

The defendants had obtained electricity and water supplies.

A landowner might reasonably think:

> "If the authorities allowed them to have electricity and water, surely they must have been allowed to live there."

The court did not draw that conclusion.

Utility connections demonstrated that the occupants were living there and that the relevant agencies knew about the settlement.

They did not, however, establish ownership of the land.

In other words:

> Having a utility connection is not the same as having title to the land.

This distinction is important because utility records, correspondence and bills may demonstrate occupation, but they do not necessarily establish a proprietary interest.

# What About the Authorities' Knowledge?

The court also considered the fact that the authorities had known about the settlement for many years.

This was significant because the occupants were not simply people who had secretly entered the land yesterday.

Nevertheless, the court did not consider the authorities' knowledge or apparent tolerance sufficient to create ownership.

The judge observed that the occupants' initial entry had not been surreptitious and had occurred with the tacit or express acquiescence of authorities and utility agencies.

Yet the documentary evidence continued to identify the occupants as squatters.

This illustrates another important principle:

> Tolerance of occupation does not necessarily mean permission to own the land.

However, this should not be misunderstood to mean that every case involving tolerated occupation will produce the same result.

The precise circumstances of how occupation began, what promises were made, whether a licence existed and what documents were issued can matter significantly.

The court's reasoning can be reduced to several questions.

1. Who was the registered proprietor?

DBKL was the registered owner of the land.

That established the starting point for the ownership analysis.

2. Did the occupants have registered title?

No.

The land had never been registered in the names of the defendants.

3. Did they have a licence or other recognised right to occupy?

The court found no evidence establishing such a right.

4. Did decades of occupation create ownership?

The court rejected that proposition on the facts of the case.

5. Did improvements to the land create ownership?

The fact that occupants had spent money constructing and improving houses did not itself give them ownership of the underlying land.

6. Did water and electricity prove a right to occupy?

No.

They demonstrated occupation and awareness by the relevant agencies, but did not establish proprietary title.

7. Could the registered owner recover possession?

Yes.

Because the defendants could not establish a legal right to remain, the registered owner was entitled to seek vacant possession.

The judge described the inference that the defendants were squatters as irresistible, based on the evidence and contemporaneous documents.

The court also noted that the defendants had ultimately not established the claimed rights, ownership, interests, legitimate expectations or equity that would prevent the registered owner from obtaining possession.

This is important because the case was not decided merely by saying:

> "They are squatters, therefore they lose."

The court examined why they were squatters and whether they could establish some independent legal basis for remaining on the land.

That is the more useful lesson.

The principle is also supported by the Federal Court's discussion in Setapak Tin Mines Syndicate Ltd & Anor v Khoo Nean Tee & Ors [1970] 1 MLRA 445.

That case involved a landowner seeking vacant possession from squatters.

The squatters argued that the landowner should first use the statutory procedure under section 425 of the National Land Code to have them removed.

The Federal Court rejected that argument and recognised that the landowner could pursue a court action for possession.

This is useful because it demonstrates that a landowner's ability to seek possession through the courts is not necessarily displaced simply because there are statutory mechanisms dealing with unlawful occupation.

The principle of protecting a registered proprietor's rights is also relevant to the later Federal Court decision in:

Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2022] 2 MLRA 1.

The case concerned a 17.49-acre parcel of land in Klang that the appellant purchased through a public auction.

The Federal Court considered, among other issues, the rights of a registered proprietor under Malaysia's Torrens registration system and a claim involving trespass.

The judgment provides further authority concerning the protection afforded to registered ownership and the consequences of occupation without a sufficient legal basis.

The case provides several practical lessons.

1. Check the title first

When someone occupies land, the first question should be:

> Who is the registered proprietor?

Do not rely solely on:

• fences;
• physical occupation;
• old village boundaries;
• utility bills;
• verbal claims;
• receipts for construction;
• statements from neighbours.

The land register and relevant title documents are fundamental.

2. Long occupation does not automatically equal ownership

A person saying:

> "My family has lived here for 40 years"

does not, by itself, establish ownership.

The legal basis for the occupation must be examined.

3. A house does not necessarily belong to the person who built it

An occupier may have constructed a substantial building on land belonging to somebody else.

The existence of the building does not automatically transfer ownership of the underlying land.

The legal consequences can depend on the circumstances, so landowners should obtain legal advice before taking action involving structures.

4. Do not assume utility connections prove land ownership

Electricity and water connections may show that an occupier has been living at a location.

They do not necessarily establish:

• registered ownership;
• a lease;
• a licence;
• a TOL; or
• another proprietary interest.

5. Find out how the occupation began

This can be extremely important.

There is a significant difference between:

A. Someone secretly entering your land last month

and

B. A family being relocated onto land decades ago with the knowledge or involvement of an authority or landowner.

The second situation may raise additional questions about licences, promises, representations, equitable rights or other legal issues.

The Tan Poh Wah case demonstrates that these issues need to be examined rather than assumed.

A practical approach is:

Step 1 — Verify ownership

Obtain the current official title and confirm the registered proprietor.

Step 2 — Confirm the physical boundary

If the dispute concerns a fence, house or structure, obtain a proper survey rather than relying on visual estimates.

Step 3 — Identify the occupier

Record who is actually occupying the land and what structures or activities are taking place.

Step 4 — Establish how the occupation began

Look for:

• old agreements;
• licences;
• TOL documents;
• correspondence;
• government records;
• payment receipts;
• previous owners' communications; and
• other documents concerning permission to occupy.

Step 5 — Do not assume the legal position

Being the registered owner is highly significant, but the exact rights and remedies should be assessed against the circumstances of the particular property.

Step 6 — Obtain legal advice before attempting eviction

Do not simply remove someone's belongings, demolish structures or use force because you believe the person is a squatter.

The legal process and appropriate remedy depend on the circumstances.

The Tan Poh Wah case is a useful reminder that occupation and ownership are not interchangeable concepts.

The occupants had lived on the land for decades. They had built houses. They had access to electricity and water. The authorities knew about their presence.

Yet those facts did not establish that they had acquired ownership or another sufficient legal right to remain.

The decisive question was not:

> "How long have they lived there?"

It was:

> "What legal right do they have to occupy the land?"

For landowners dealing with squatters, that distinction can be critical.

At the same time, every occupation dispute should be examined on its own facts. A person described as a "squatter" may sometimes raise other legal issues depending on how the occupation began and whether permission, a licence, a promise or another legal interest existed.

Important: This article is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice. Land disputes can turn on the specific title, documents, history of occupation and applicable statutory provisions.

Sources

The reported judgment and case materials for Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Tan Poh Wah & Ors are available in the case report materials.

For the Federal Court authority concerning registered ownership and trespass, see Bayangan Sepadu Sdn Bhd v Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Negeri Selangor & Ors [2022] 2 MLRA 1.