Land ownership in Malaysia is primarily governed by the National Land Code 1965 (NLC), which establishes the legal framework for land registration, ownership, and occupation. Under the NLC, proprietary rights over land only arise when such rights are lawfully granted by the State Authority and duly registered in the land registry.

The NLC specifically addresses the issue of unlawful occupation. Section 48 of the NLC provides that no title to State land can be obtained through possession or unlawful occupation for any period whatsoever. Although the statute does not expressly use the term “squatter,” the law instead refers to such individuals as persons in unlawful occupation of land. In practical terms, this means that individuals or groups occupying land without lawful title cannot acquire ownership rights, regardless of the length of their occupation.

In Malaysia, discussions relating to squatters occasionally arise in connection with what is commonly referred to as “kuil haram,” a colloquial term describing Hindu temples constructed on land without proper authorization or legal title. Some of these temples were established decades ago by communities residing near estates, plantations, or government land. While such structures may hold religious or cultural importance for the communities involved, their existence does not alter the legal position under Malaysia’s land law.

The courts have also clarified the legal status of squatters in Malaysia. In Tjia Swan Nio v Ng Nyuk Moi & Ors [1992] 2 MLJ 666, the court described a squatter as a person who enters and occupies land without any lawful right and intends to remain there for as long as possible. Even if the occupier attempts to justify the occupation, such as by arguing that the land was vacant or unused, such reasons do not provide a valid defence in law.

Furthermore, the principle that squatters do not acquire legal rights over land has been upheld by the court. In the Federal Court case of Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors v Government of the State of Perak & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 313, it was affirmed that unlawful occupiers cannot claim ownership merely because they have occupied the land for a long period of time. As a result, the lawful landowner retains the right to take action to recover possession of the land and remove squatters whenever necessary.

It is pertinent to note that Malaysia’s land law is based on the Torrens system of land registration, which emphasizes certainty and security of title. Under Section 340 of the NLC, the registered proprietor enjoys indefeasible title, meaning that their ownership is legally protected against unregistered claims or interests. Disputes concerning land ownership are therefore determined by reference to the land register rather than by the duration of occupation.

Unlike certain jurisdictions that recognize the doctrine of adverse possession, Malaysia’s land law generally does not allow squatters to acquire ownership through long-term occupation. The NLC prioritizes registered ownership and the provisions relating to unlawful occupation enable both the government and lawful landowners to take action to remove encroachments and reclaim possession of their land.

In conclusion, the legal position under the NLC is clear. Squatters, including those occupying land for unauthorized religious structures such as so-called “kuil haram,” do not obtain legal rights to the land regardless of how long the land has been occupied. The fundamental principle of Malaysia’s land law remains that ownership is determined by lawful registration rather than by occupation.