The Rights of Squatters under the Malaysian Law: Whether Squatters Have Better Rights than a Registered Proprietor?

By Munjid bin Muhammad

ABSTRACT 

This article examines the legal status, rights and limitations of squatters under Malaysian land law with a focus on whether under any circumstances, any person occupying a land unlawfully may acquire rights superior to a registered proprietor. Drawing from statutory provisions within the National Land Code 1965, the Federal Constitution, judicial precedents and administrative regulations governing unlawful occupation, the study demonstrates that Malaysian law maintains an uncompromising position: adverse possession is strictly prohibited and long-term occupation does not confer proprietary rights. Nonetheless, Malaysian jurisprudence reveals limited circumstances in which occupiers may assert legitimate claims based on consent, licence or representations by landowners or State authorities.

Through a qualitative doctrinal analysis, this paper contrasts Malaysia’s Torrens-based land registration system with the Common Law approach in the United Kingdom where adverse possession may mature into legal ownership. This comparison illuminates the philosophical and constitutional foundations that prevent Malaysia from adopting a similar system. Ultimately, the article concludes that while Malaysian law strongly protects registered proprietors, equitable considerations and procedural safeguards ensure that disputes involving unlawful occupation are not resolved mechanically but with due attention to justice, fairness and administrative accountability.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The issue of squatting has long posed legal, social and administrative challenges within Malaysia’s land governance framework. Squatting generally refers to the occupation of land without legal title, licence or permission from the proprietor. Although commonly associated with informal settlements, squatting also extends to cases where individuals, communities or their predecessors have occupied land for decades, sometimes with implied consent or political assurances and in some instances, with the tacit tolerance of State authorities. As Malaysia continues to experience rapid urbanisation, the presence of long-standing squatter communities raises complex questions about housing rights, development priorities and the balance between legal ownership and social equity.

At the heart of this discussion lies a central legal question: Can squatters ever acquire rights that surpass those of a registered proprietor? Under Common Law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, doctrines such as adverse possession may allow long-term occupiers to obtain ownership after a prescribed period. However, the Malaysian Torrens system, reinforced by the National Land Code 1965, adopts an entirely different philosophy, one that prioritises certainty, indefeasibility of title and constitutional protection of property rights.

Despite the strict statutory prohibition against adverse possession in Malaysia, case laws reveal situations in which unlawful occupiers are not simply treated as trespassers. Courts have recognised limited rights where occupation is supported by consent, licence, legitimate expectation or authorised representations by State officials. These nuanced distinctions underscore the importance of examining squatters’ rights not merely as a binary legal issue but as an intersection of statutory law, judicial interpretation, land administration and social policy.

This article seeks to explore these complexities by analysing statutory provisions, judicial decisions and comparative perspectives. Through this examination, it aims to determine the extent to which squatters may assert rights under Malaysian law and whether such rights under specific factual circumstances could ever challenge the legally protected position of registered proprietors.

1.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this research is to examine the legal position of squatters under Malaysian law and to determine whether, in any circumstances, their rights can supersede those of a registered proprietor. This study seeks to analyse how the National Land Code 1965 regulates unlawful occupation, emphasising the prohibition of adverse possession and the statutory protection granted to registered titles. In doing so, this research also aims to evaluate the extent to which long-term occupiers may acquire lawful rights through consent, licence or legitimate expectation particularly when such occupation is supported by representations or approval from the State Authority or the landowner.

Additionally, this research intends to assess the legal remedies and mechanisms available to registered proprietors when dealing with squatters including the use of summary possession proceedings under Order 89 of the Rules of Court and administrative enforcement powers provided under the Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969. A further objective of this study is to compare the Malaysian approach with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom where adverse possession may allow squatters to obtain legal title, thereby highlighting the contrasting legal philosophies surrounding land occupation.

1.2 RESEARCH METHADOLOGY

This study adopts a qualitative research methodology, primarily utilising a doctrinal and library-based approach to examine the legal rights of squatters under Malaysian law. The research relies heavily on the qualitative analysis of primary legal sources including statutes such as the National Land Code 1965, the Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969 and relevant provisions of the Rules of Court 2012. Judicial decisions from Malaysian courts are analysed to interpret how the law is applied in cases involving unlawful occupation, consent to occupy and summary eviction. Secondary sources such as academic commentaries, journal articles, textbooks, policy papers and authoritative legal writings are also consulted to provide deeper insight into the legal principles and socio-legal issues surrounding squatting.

A comparative qualitative analysis is employed to contrast the Malaysian position with jurisdictions of the Common Law in the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to the doctrine of adverse possession. This method enables the study to highlight fundamental differences in legal philosophy and policy considerations. Throughout the study, the qualitative method is used to interpret legal texts, synthesise judicial reasoning and evaluate broader social and policy implications, rather than relying on numerical data or empirical measurement. This methodological approach allows for a holistic and in-depth understanding of the legal and societal dimensions of squatters’ rights in Malaysia.

2.0 DEFINITION OF SQUATTER

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, squatter can be defined as the one that settles on property without right or title or payment of rent. It may also include the one that settles on public land under government regulation with the purpose of acquiring title^[1]. There is also a Malaysian case that deliberate on the definition of the squatters, according to the case of Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd v Penduduk-Penduduk Yang menduduki Atas Tanah HS (D) 151079-HS(D) 151601, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru [1999] 6 MLJ 26, it is stated that “person who enters upon another’s land and remains thereon to the detriment of the present owner is a trespasser, pure and simple”^[2]. In simple terms, squatter refers to those who occupies an occupied land without the permission of the owner^[3].  

3.0 POSITION OF SQUATTER UNDER THE MALAYSIAN LAW 

Under the Malaysian Law, the law that governs relating to land is the National Land Code 1965 (“The NLC”). Althought there is no word of ‘squatter’ being used in the NLC, however there are words such as ‘Adverse Possession’ and Unlawful Occupation’ being used which implies that it is illegal for squatters to reside in a land owned by someone else. The position of the Malaysian law is very clear where squatters that occupy any land unalwfully, they shall have no right as to the land that they are occupying regardless of how many years they have occupied it. There are two types of land where unlawful occupation may occur.

3.1 SQUATTER ON PUBLIC LANDS 

Firstly, in relation to Public lands owned by states, according to section 425 of the NLC, stated that unlawful occupation of state land is an offence^[4], furthermore, in Section 48 of the NLC, stated that no adverse possession against the state land. The effect of both of these sections are even if there is occupation for a long period of time, the squatter has no better right in the land than the state^[5]. This was illustrated in the leading case of  the case of Lee Loy & Ors v Poh Kam Sang & Anor^[6], shows a good example that staying on the land for a long duration of time does not grant the occupier rights over the land, The respondents were the executors of the estate of a deceased who died in 1975 leaving a piece of land. The appellants individually came to occupy and build their dwellings upon the land at various times between 1967 and 1990 The respondents claimed they were not trespassers or squatters but that each of them was given permission to occupy the land by the deceased. The appellants tried to obtain temporary occupation licences (‘TOLs’) from the state government to occupy the land but were unsuccessful. The respondents applied to the High Court by way of an originating summons (‘OS’) pursuant to Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 for summary possession of the land. The High Court allowed the OS, substantially dismissed enclosed 63 but granted the appellants nine months to vacate. The court found no evidence to show the appellants had permission or consent of either the deceased or the respondents to occupy the land; rather, that there was ample evidence to show they were occupying the land illegally. 

However, if it can be proven that there is consent from the state authority to occupy the land, then, the occupier of the said land would not be considered as a squatter. This has been highlighted in the case of  the case of Bohari Bin Taib & Ors v Pengarah Tanah Galian Selangor^[7] Forefathers of Appellant settled in agricultural land. Alleged that between 1971-1976 they applied to state authority for land titles and in 1980, State Authority approved alienation, later appellant were informed that they would only be granted with TOL after 3 years after that they would acquire titles. Later, respondent handed the land to FELCRA, later wanted to compulsory evict the Appellant under order 89 rules of High Court 1980. There is evidence of the approval of alienation by the State Authority and was acting under NLC. They were also affirmed by Dato Haji Kamarulzaman bin Haji Ahmad, member of the executive council who had personally assured them. On the condition that only landless would be given titles. Furthermore, conditions for the first 3 years only TOL is given provided that they continue to cultivate the land and remain landless status. Therefore, since they acquired consent from the State Authority, Order 89 is not applicable. This case highlights the importance to differentiate between squatters who have no rights over the land and an occupier who occupies the land with permission or consent. If the occupier is able to ensure that its stay was permitted by the owner or the state authority, then the occupier would have an arguable case. 

3.2 SQUATTERS ON PRIVATE LAND 

The position in The NLC is similar when it comes to private land, where the NLC does not recognise unlawful occupation against a registered proprietor. This principle is illustrated in Section 341 of NLC states that,

“Adverse possession of land for any length of time whatsoever shall not constitute a bar to the bringing of any action for the recovery thereof by the proprietor or any person or body entitled to an interest therein, and accordingly, the Limitation Act 1953, shall in no circumstances operate to extinguish any title to, or interest in, land”.^[8]

This section protects the title of the registered proprietor of land against any claims of adverse possession by squatters, the length of time that an occupant had been on the property will not have the effect of turning unlawful occupation into a lawful occupation.

There are two types of trends that are discernable in relation to cases on unlawful occupation of land that are brought to the courts. The first trend is where the occupiers seek a declaration that they have a right to stay on the land by relying on long users as well the representations made by state officials in relation to their stay on the land. In such cases, the courts have held that the law is clear that unlawful occupiers are not entitled to such declaration. ^[9]

The second trend is where the legal owner of the land applies for an order of possession under the rules of court. The factual pattern that can be identified in such cases is that the land was formerly State land and the occupiers have been on such land since then. State officials and /or politicians have, by their words or actions, encouraged the occupiers to stay on the land. The state authority subsequently alienates the land to a developer or state development agency to be developed into a large scale project. The developer who is now the registered proprietor of the land then applies for a summary order of possession? to evict the occupiers. The decision in such cases will be based on whether the squatters are pure squatters (‘squatters simpliciter)^[10] or ‘occupiers with licence or consent’. Those who have managed to come within the term ‘occupiers with licence or consent’ are occupiers who have been able to show a strong arguable case that they were granted a licence to stay on the land in lieu of the State alienating the land to them. In such cases, the court will not grant a summary order of possession but will advise that such case should go for full trial.

3.3 ACTIONABLE CLAIMS AGAINST SQUATTERS 

3.3.1 EMERGENCY (CLEARANCE OF SQUATTERS) REGULATIONS 1969

In Malaysia, particularly in rapidly developing cities like Kuala Lumpur and Shah Alam, local authorities have taken aggressive steps to clear squatter settlements, viewing them as barriers to urban growth. These actions are primarily carried out under the Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969 (‘ECSR’), which grants broad powers to local authorities to demolish squatter huts and remove occupants from state, reserved, mining, or forest land without the need for prior notice or judicial oversight^[11].

Under the ECSR, a “squatter hut” is broadly defined to include any form of shelter constructed without local authority approval. Regulation 4 allows authorities to enter such land at any time during day or night and demolish structures or evict people without warning, particularly on public land. On private land, however, the law requires a 7 day written notice before eviction if the authority is acting at the landowner’s request^[12].

The law is controversial for its severity and lack of safeguards for those affected. No provisions exist for compensation, relocation, or temporary housing, and notice is only guaranteed for private land occupants, leaving those on public land more vulnerable. Although squatters can claim movable property within 14 days post-eviction, this does little to soften the impact of sudden displacement.

This disparity raises concerns about fairness, human dignity, and the need for reform. While the law may serve developmental interests, it often does so at the cost of basic human rights. Both public and private land occupants deserve equal protection, notice, and a more compassionate approach to eviction and resettlement.^[13]

3.3.2 ORDER 89 OF THE RULES OF COURT 2012

The eviction of squatters under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012^[14] is intended to offer landowners a swift and effective mechanism to recover possession of their land from unlawful occupiers. This special procedure recognises that squatters occupying land without permission, licence, or legal entitlement should not be allowed to delay legitimate claims for possession. The process, however, must still comply with procedural fairness. It begins with the filing of an originating summons supported by an affidavit, through to the eventual enforcement of a writ of possession.^[15]

However, the matter becomes more complex if the squatter contests the originating summon. A common defence is an allegation that the squatters occupy the land with the landowner’s consent either by way of express or implied. If such a defence is raised and supported by prima facie evidence, the summary nature of Order 89 is no longer suitable. In such cases, courts have held, including in Shaheen Bte Abu Bakar v Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor^[16] and Tekad Urus Sdn Bhd v Penduduk-penduduk Desa Perwira^[17], that the matter should proceed to a full trial. This ensures that contested factual issues, particularly those relating to authority or permission, can be properly examined.^[18]

Overall, Order 89 provides a streamlined process for landowners to recover possession of land from unlawful occupiers. However, it maintains safeguards to ensure that genuine disputes are not unfairly determined without trial.

4.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE MALAYSIAN LAW AND THE COMMON LAW 

Under the Common Law, while squatting is generally discouraged and even criminalized in some situations, the law still recognizes certain circumstances where a squatter may gain legal rights to a property. This is made possible through the legal principle of adverse possession, which allows someone who has occupied land without permission to eventually claim ownership, provided specific conditions are met.

For registered land, the relevant law is Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002. A squatter who has occupied such land continuously and without consent for at least 10 years can apply to be registered as the new legal owner. When such an application is made, the Land Registry must notify the current owner, who then has 65 business days to object and initiate steps to evict the squatter. If the owner fails to act within that period, or under certain exceptions (such as a boundary dispute or equity-based reliance), the squatter’s claim to ownership may be successful.^[19]

In contrast, for unregistered land, adverse possession is governed by Section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act 1980. Here, if a squatter occupies land continuously for 12 years, the legal owner’s right to recover the land is extinguished, and the squatter may then apply to register the land in their name. Unlike the process for registered land, the legal owner has fewer formal protections once the 12-year period has lapsed.^[20]

In both cases, the squatter must show that their possession was exclusive, continuous, and without the owner’s consent. While these laws offer a path to legal ownership, the process is complex and rarely straightforward, requiring careful legal navigation.

Although under the Common Law, long-term squatters may acquire ownership of land through adverse possession, this legal approach is not suitable for adoption in Malaysia due to key constitutional, structural, and policy differences. Malaysia operates under the Torrens system of land registration, where certainty, conclusiveness, and indefeasibility of title form the foundation of land law. Section 340 and Section 341 of the NLC make it clear that adverse possession cannot extinguish the title of a registered proprietor.^[21] This principle stands in direct contrast to the Common law’s system, where occupation for a prescribed period (10 or 12 years) may entitle a squatter to apply for registration as owner.

More importantly, the Malaysian Federal Constitution protects property rights in a way that is incompatible with the Common law model. Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution expressly states that “no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law,” ^[22]while Article 13(2) requires compensation for any compulsory acquisition.^[23] Allowing squatters to obtain ownership simply by the passage of time would effectively deprive registered proprietors of their land without due process or compensation. Such a mechanism would therefore risk violating constitutional safeguards, making adverse possession not only practically problematic but also constitutionally untenable.

There are also significant socio-legal reasons why Malaysia cannot adopt the UK’s approach. In many Malaysian towns and rural areas, long-term occupation often occurs due to historical resettlement patterns, past political assurances, or temporary tolerance by local authorities. If long occupation could mature into ownership, thousands of informal settlements could automatically transform into privately owned land, resulting in widespread loss of state land, undermining development plans, and disrupting housing schemes such as FELDA, FELCRA, and local low-cost housing initiatives. This would conflict with Malaysia’s land administration system, where state governments hold constitutional authority over land (Federal Constitution, Ninth Schedule) and rely on planned, regulated schemes rather than unregulated occupation.

Furthermore, adopting the UK model would undermine the principle of land certainty. Investors, developers, and ordinary homebuyers rely on the Torrens registry to guarantee that what is registered is legally accurate. If squatters were allowed to defeat registered title through the passage of time, this certainty would be compromised, potentially destabilising the property market and reducing public trust in the entire registration system.

Finally, allowing adverse possession in Malaysia could unintentionally incentivise unlawful occupation. Given Malaysia’s pattern of idle lands awaiting approval, speculative occupation might increase if people believed that remaining long enough could grant them ownership. This would erode the rule of law and conflict with existing mechanisms such as TOL’s, leases and planned land distribution programme

5.0 CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the legal framework in Malaysia is clear in prioritising the rights of registered proprietors and the State over those of squatters. Under the National Land Code 1965, neither prolonged occupation nor the passage of time grants squatters legal title, whether on public or private land. The law strictly prohibits adverse possession against the State and protects registered proprietors from claims by unlawful occupiers, reflecting a principled commitment to the security and certainty of land ownership. While other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, pr on ovide avenues for squatters to acquire ownership through long-term occupation, such doctrines are incompatible with Malaysia’s constitutional safeguards, particularly Article 13, which protects individuals from being deprived of property except in accordance with law. Adopting a UK-style model would risk undermining the Torrens system, destabilising the property market and eroding the certainty essential for land administration.

At the same time, Malaysia recognises the practical challenges faced by landowners in enforcing their rights, particularly where the identities of unlawful occupiers are unknown. The summary proceedings under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 provide an efficient and relatively cost-effective mechanism to obtain possession, balancing the need for swift enforcement with procedural safeguards to ensure fairness. Courts have also demonstrated a cautious approach where occupiers can credibly assert lawful occupation or consent, highlighting the judiciary’s role in balancing property rights with equitable considerations.

Ultimately, while squatters may occupy land for extended periods, Malaysian law ensures that such occupation does not automatically confer legal rights. Landowners, whether individuals or the State, retain the primary authority to reclaim their property, provided that proper legal procedures are followed. This framework underscores a deliberate policy choice to protect the rights of proprietors, maintain the integrity of the land registration system and provide a structured, fair process for addressing unlawful occupation.

REFERENCES 

ARTICLES & ONLINE SOURCES

1. Kumar, Preveena Ravindra. “Honey, There’s A Squatter on Our Land! Squatters Rights in Malaysia & the Legal Remedies for Landowners.” Thomas Philip Advocates & Solicitors. January 19, 2021. https://www.thomasphilip.com.my/articles/honey-therers-a-squatter-on-our-land-squatters-rights-in-malaysia-the-legal-remedies-for-landowners/.

2. MahWengKwai & Associates. “Eviction of Squatters in Malaysia: Your Rights as a Landowner.” Accessed November 26, 2025. https://mahwengkwai.com/eviction-squatters-malaysia/.

3. Merriam-Webster. “Squatter.” Accessed April 11, 2025. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/squatter.

4. Sharifah Zubaidah Syed Abdul Kader. Eviction of Unlawful Occupiers of Land in Malaysia. Accessed April 11, 2025. https://e-perundangan.pkns.gov.my/pdf/evictionunlawful.pdf.

CASES

1. Bohari bin Taib & Ors v. Pengarah Tanah Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343 (Malaysia).

2. Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd v. Penduduk-Penduduk atas Tanah HS(D) 151079–HS(D) 151601, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru [1996] 6 MLJ 25 (Malaysia).

3. Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd v. Penduduk-Penduduk yang Menduduki Atas Tanah HS(D) 151079–HS(D) 151601, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru [1999] 6 MLJ 26 (Malaysia).

4. Lee Loy & Ors v. Poh Kam Sang & Anor [2018] 3 MLJ 240 (Malaysia).

5. Shaheen Bte Abu Bakar v. Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor [1998] 4 MLJ 233 (Malaysia).

6. Sidek and Ors v. Government of the State of Perak [1982] 1 MLJ 313 (Malaysia).

7. Tekad Urus Sdn Bhd v. Penduduk-Penduduk Desa Perwira [2004] 2 CLJ 516 (Malaysia).

STATUTES, REGULATIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

1. Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969.

2. Federal Constitution of Malaysia, art. 13.

3. Limitation Act 1980 (UK), Schedule 1.

4. National Land Code 1965, §§ 48, 341, 425.

5. Land Registration Act 2002 (UK), Schedule 6.

6. Rules of Court 2012 (Malaysia), Order 89.

---

^[1] Merriam Webster Dictionary.

^[2] Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd v Penduduk-Penduduk Yang menduduki Atas Tanah HS (D) 151079-HS(D) 151601, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru [1999] 6 MLJ 26

^[3] Preveena Ravindra Kumar, “Honey There’s A Squatter on Our Land! Squatters Rights in Malaysia & the Legal Remedies for Landowners”, Thomas Philip Advocates & Solicitors, January 19, 2021, https://www.thomasphilip.com.my/articles/honey-therers-a-squatter-on-our-land-squatters-rights-in-malaysia-the-legal-remedies-for-landowners/.

^[4] Section 425 of the National Land Code, 1965.

^[5] Section 48 of the National Land Code, 1965.

^[6] Lee Loy & Ors v Poh Kam Sang & Anor [2018] 3 MLJ 240

^[7] Bohari Bin Taib & Ors v Pengarah Tanah Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343 

^[8] Section 341 of the National Land Code 1965.

^[9] Sidek and Ors v Government of the State of Perak [1982] 1 MLJ 313.

^[10] Bukit Lenang Development Sdn. Bhd. v Penduduk-pendudukAtas tanah HS(D) 151079 –HS(D) 151601, Mukim Plentong Daerah Johor Bahru [1996] 6 MLJ 25.

^[11] The Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969.

^[12] Regulation 4 of the Emergency (Clearance of Squatters) Regulations 1969.

^[13] Sharifah Zubaidah Syed Abdul Kader, “Eviction of Unlawful Occupiers of Land in Malaysia”, accessed April 11, 2025,  https://e-perundangan.pkns.gov.my/pdf/evictionunlawful.pdf.

^[14] Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012

^[15] MahWengKwai & Associates, “Eviction of Squatters in Malaysia: Your Rights as a Landowner,” accessed November 26, 2025, https://mahwengkwai.com/eviction-squatters-malaysia/.

^[16] Shaheen Bte Abu Bakar v Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor [1998] 4 MLJ 233

^[17] Tekad Urus Sdn Bhd v Penduduk-penduduk Desa Perwira [2004] 2 CLJ 516

^[18] MahWengKwai & Associates, “Eviction of Squatters in Malaysia: Your Rights as a Landowner,” accessed November 26, 2025, https://mahwengkwai.com/eviction-squatters-malaysia/.

^[19] Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

^[20] Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act 1980. 

^[21] Section 340 and 341 of the National Land Code 1965.

^[22] Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution. 

^[23] Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution.