The village Chubadak is located near the city of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. According to oral history, the Chubadak Village at the North that was once known as Kampung Chubadak Hulu and next to the South known as Kampung Chubadak Hilir has been around before the 1800s. The village was explored by people of minang Chubadak from Sumatra for berjenarasi. The indigenous village of Chubadak is a Malay res
erve land owners from before to now having their own land grants. While the village Chubadak the Kampung Pasir and Kampung Chubadak are bordered by Garden Dato ' Senu that has been separated by The DUKE is mine. But mining in the area ended in the 1940s. Residents started building houses in the mining area and some surf infrastructure like halls, prayer rooms, clinics and schools are built. Most of the people in this area are retired military and Government. But for the villagers of Kampung Chubadak Original most of them work in the industrial areas and private companies such as guard, labour and so on. Chief Minister Dato ' Harun Idris order, also promising that the Selangor Government promises will take steps to ensure that villagers and village next to get title to the land they occupy. In the 1960s, the District Officer of Kuala Lumpur has prepared a sketch plan is aimed at breaking the land to the plot-the plot entitled divided residents of the land. The Status of the Malay reserve land Chubadak village cancelled by acclamation of the Rezap No 4851/1932 dated 22 June 1932. According to the village head of Kampung Chubadak in addition, Rahim Ali, Kuala Lumpur City Hall has been the village COUNCIL to categorize as a squatter settlement in the draft plan of the city of Kuala Lumpur (KLCP) 2020 together five villages again. Other villages are Kampung Padang Balang, Kampung Bandar Dalam, Kampung Sungai Merali, Kampung Bahagia and Puah.
1.-at first, the land is Malay reserve land but the status has been revoked. Based on the evidence of land surveyors a Seah Kok Seang, who testified as an expert witness, judge arif received expert evidence that the status of Malay reserve gazetted by Gazette Notification No. 4851/1932 dated June 22, 1932. This has been confirmed in a letter from the Director of lands & Mines dated February 9, 1996.
2. the registered owners of the land Sentul Murni and Lain2, it knew or ought to have known of the equity has been around long before it becomes the owner. Residents also pointed out that their continued occupation says the land is known or express or implied released and/or promoted by the State authority or by the City Council.
3.-it is also proof that between 1960 and 1990 various facilities have been provided by the authorities, such as the Town Hall, three mosques, water and electricity, telephone service, clinic and paved roads.
4. City Hall built a Community Hall, a second and a building to carry out development activities for women and a number of religious schools. The population also brings evidence to show that this village, called additional Chubadak village is controlled and administered by His own power.(booking residents associations legally registered).
5.-There is also evidence that before the creation of the Federal territory, Selangor State Government has set up a body known as development and Security Committee (JKKK) in this village, headed by the Chief of the village.
6.-when the Federal District was formed on 1 February, 1970, THIS COMMITTEE was replaced by the City Hall and the position of village head has now been removed. However, in 1987, this post revived and Ministry of federal territories appointed former village head to administer the village.
7.-in the 1960s, the District Officer of Kuala Lumpur provides the layout plan of the former mining where an extra Chubadak and Puah Opposite where the village is located, the application of land to various lots will be allocated to the residents at that time occupied the land.
8.-it is the people that stand between 1960 and 1990, many dignitaries making official visits to the village and they include politicians and the Sultan. Even during the official launch of the child health Clinic and an extra head in Kampung Chubadak, Chief Minister, Datuk Harun Idris order, promising that the Selangor State Government will take specific measures to enable the residents of the village and next to the
village to get title to the land they occupied.
9.-in 1974 the Chief Minister also told residents that the State Government will issue titles to the settlers. He also referred to the minutes of the meeting dated December 9, 1976, which shows that there is the approval given by the Executive Committee of the State of Selangor on August 9, 1962, dividing the land to residents who live there.
10.-after the establishment of the Federal territory in 1974, and on January 10, 1976, the Executive Committee Of the Federal District, which along with the State Commissioner for lands and Minerals in other States, expressly that the said approval of the Selangor State Executive Committee run by the collector of land revenue of the Federal District. There is no evidence that the Executive Committee Of the Federal District has been changed or canceled policies with regard to the occupation of the Malay population in the village Chubadak. All these remain challenged.
10.-After tracking the history of the land and about how and when residents came over the land, and take into account the decision of the Federal Court in Bohari Taib v Director of lands & Mines Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, Honourable Judges concluded that the inhabitants are not squatters. He finds there is permission and license from the State authority that the respondent can occupy or continue to occupy land
that price.
11.-population also settled in accordance with the agreement of the State authorities, encouragement and approval, they grow money and labor to improve and further develop the land in Chubadak in addition, who is a former mine land. All this has been known to earlier landowners.
12.-Accordingly, based on the evidence before the judge of his lordship, the people bringing the facts and conclusions as they do and we have no reason to disagree. We reject the appeal of the land owners with costs and confirm the decision and order of the presiding judge arif and also ordered that a deposit is paid to residents for the costs incurred.
