Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Reference is made to the statement of Director of the Lands and Surveys Department yesterday. Osman Jamal

We wish to reiterate here that the land owner concerned had never signed the alleged loan agreement. Relevant police report was made stating that they do not even know the law firm and the lender concerned. In fact, the signatures in the loan agreement are totally different from that of the land owners’. What puzzles us most is how the registration of the caveat can be done when the landowner’s name in the land title and the loan agreement (which is the basis of the registration of the caveat) are of a different owner?

If the Director of the Land and Survey Department says that the role of his department is to determine and ensure all documents submitted by the legal firm were proper, then how can the registration of the caveat be allowed despite the owner’s name on the caveat form and the loan agreement are different? Even the signatures of the caveator and the lender (which is supposed to be the same person) are different. Further, the company’s number on the land title and the loan agreement are different. With so many discrepancies it is indeed amaze how the caveat on the said land can be “certified fit for registration” as stated on the caveat form.

We therefore advise the Land Office to carry out a thorough check on this matter and don’t push the blame to somebody else instead. I have also come across cases where original land titles were removed by don’t know who although the relevant submissions were done by another law firm. By right, the Land office should have returned the original land titles to the law firm concerned who has lodged the relevant submissions and not somebody else. We therefore urge the relevant department concerned to investigate the Lands and Survey Department. We believe the Land Office has got a lot of explanation to do.

As for Ng’s case, we are writing to the “caveator” to remove the caveat immediately failing which necessary legal actions will be taken against all the parties concerned.

Joan Goh Penn Nee – State Committee Secretary cum Legal Bureau Chief of Sabah DAP.


针对土地局主任的新闻发表
沙巴民主行动党州秘书兼法律事务局主任吴佩霓在此重申该地契拥有者从未签署任何有关贷款协议。 在相关的警方报案书了也说明了他们甚至不知道该律师事务所和银行。 事实上该贷款协议书上的签名和地主是完全不相同的。 让我们感到疑惑为什么扣押土地的程序可以顺利进行,当该地契的地主名字和贷款协议的名字完全不一样(根据扣押土地程序文件)?

如果土地局主任说,他的部门的任务是确定并且确保律师事务提交的所有文件是正确的,那么登记扣押土地的地契拥有者的姓名和贷款协议的姓名会是完全不同? 即使签署该扣押土地文件和贷款人(理当是同一人)却完全不同的人。 此外,该地契的公司编号和贷款协议中的也是不一样。 由于如此众多的差异确实 让人感到非常疑惑,该地契如何可以说是“认证适合注册”而得以进行扣押土地的程序。

因此,我们奉劝土地局进行彻底检查,并且不要推卸责任,把问题丢给别人。 此外,虽然是由某家律师事务所进行申请,吴佩霓却发现原来的地契被不知谁人更改。 依照正确的程序,土地局应该把原地契归回给该负责进行扣押土地申请的法律事务,而不是他人。 因此,我们敦促有关部门调查土地局,相信土地局有很多地方必须给予详细的解释。
至于吴先生的情形,我们将写信给 “扣押土地登记”部门 ,要求立即解除扣押土地,否则凡有牵涉在内的将面对法律行动。


Published on: Monday, June 15, 2009

Kota Kinabalu: Anyone can apply to caveat a piece of land provided they can prove that they have a legal interest on the land, according to Lands and Surveys Director Datuk Osman Jamal.
However, this is not final as any caveat could be challenged through a land inquiry and removed if the caveator is unable to provide legal document that they have interest on the said land.
Osman was responding to Sabah DAP's call to investigate Lands and Surveys Department personnel following an alleged fraudulent land transaction case in Sandakan.
According DAP Sabah Chief Dr Hiew King Cheu, the complainant named Ng found out that his land in Sandakan had been used as collateral by someone to obtain a RM200,000 loan.
He went further to say that the loan agreement was subsequently used for submission to the Lands and Surveys Department to caveat the land title.
On this, Osman said in many cases the landowner was found to have signed an agreement with a third party witness by their assigned lawyer.
In the case of Ng, Osman said the agreement clearly indicated that Ng obtained a loan from the third party and used his land as collateral.
"Its must be remembered that all their transactions were done legally through their appointed lawyer," said Osman adding that the land owner must know what is the agreement all about when signing.
He reiterated that in applying for caveat, all such documentation, submission and attestation of any signature involved were witnessed by the lawyer of the registered legal firm and had nothing to do with his department.
The role of his department is merely to determine and ensure all documents submitted by the legal firm were proper, especially the caveator has the legal right to the intended land to be caveated.
Ng had also claimed that when he asked for a copy of the agreement he found out that the whole loan document was falsified bearing fraud signatures, rubber stamps, company seal and even the witness' signature were fraud.
To this, Osman said its difficult to check all documents submitted - whether done through fraud and falsification - as it is a process that involves witnessing by the legal firm and certifiying true copy by them.
Osman, however, thanked Hiew on his concern over the matter.
Meanwhile, Osman advised landowners to update their latest address with the office to ensure they could be contacted if necessary, especially when someone is applying to caveat their land.
"Its our policy to inform landowners if their land is being caveated by someone so that she or she could act immediately if they wanted to challenge them," said Osman.
He also advised landowners who lands were lost through fraud to lodged a police reports so that investigation could be carried out by the police.
Osman said his department had detected more than 60 cases of land fraud.
On April 14 his department, police and Mineral and Land Department of Malaysia held a committee meeting over the issue of commercial crime involving lands.
He said police are aware about these matters as all cases involving land fraud are handled by them while his department is providing full cooperation and necessary assistance.