www.shaproperty.com

A PROPERTY development company is appealing against a court decision that the government does not have to return some land for the price paid in 1983.

The court found that change of purpose over time was itself not evidence of bad faith . . . Noting that the land is now worth multiples of $4.2 million, the return of the land at $4.2 million would result in an unjustifiable windfall to Teng Fuh.

The company, Teng Fuh Holdings, alleges that it suffered a great injustice because nothing had been done following the sale of the land to the government for $4.2 million more than 22 years ago.

The land, which was acquired for general redevelopment, is situated at Mukim 25 Lots 498, 348 and 350 at 20-22 Geylang Road. It is estimated to be worth about $80 million now.

The compensation sum of $4.2 million was awarded to Teng Fuh on the basis of the market value of the land in 1973 - 10 years before the actual transaction.

After the land was acquired, Teng Fuh remained a tenant, paying more than $21,000 per month in rent, according to Savills, the property consultant acting for Teng Fuh.

Over the years, Teng Fuh is estimated to have paid more than $5.5 million in rent for occupying the land since its acquisition - an amount higher than the compensation it received.

In 2004, Teng Fuh wrote to the Ministry of Law seeking the return of the land but the request was refused. Teng Fuh then sought judicial review, alleging bad faith on the part of the government.

The case failed to persuade the High Court, which dismissed its application as out of time, with no satisfactory reason for the delay.

The Rules of Court say that application for leave to quash any proceeding must be made within three months of the date of the proceeding.

While agreeing that the three-month period ought to run from the time the Ministry of Law responded to an inquiry by Teng Fuh, the court held further that the ministry should have been contacted within a reasonable time.

In giving judgment, Judge Andrew Phang said that Teng Fuh ought to have contacted the ministry by latest 1993 - when the Kallang development guide plan was issued. Even if the application had not been out of time, it would still have been dismissed, as Teng Fuh had failed to meet the standard of proof required.

The court found that change of purpose over time was itself not evidence of bad faith.

The land was included as a 'Comprehensive Development Area' in the 1985 Master Plan, indicated as a 'Residential' zone in the 1993 Kallang Development Guide Plan, and rezoned part residential, part open space and part beach area pursuant to the 1998 Master Plan.

In its judgment, the court emphasised that latitude and flexibility must be accorded to the acquiring authority as land is a valuable resource in Singapore and the Land Acquisition Act was promulgated for public benefit.

The court in fact found that Teng Fuh's application was a 'blatant attempt at private profiteering in total disregard of the wider public benefit'.

Noting that the land is now worth 'multiples of $4.2 million', the court found that the return of the land at $4.2 million would result in an 'unjustifiable windfall' to Teng Fuh.

Teng Fuh is said to be involved in the development of private residential properties such as Gallop Ridge, Balmoral Condominium and Holland Peak.

The appeal against the High Court's decision is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in late October.