|
Church
demolished in June 2007
Comment from our lawyer Subramanyam
The judge wanted us to clarify the issues that the
parties had raised in their written submissions which
had been given to the judge about 3 months ago together
with the cases in support.
We explained to the judge that the Local Authority
issued 2 notices under s. 70 (4) and (5)of the Street
Drainage and Building Act, but when it came to the
demolition of the church building the Local Authority
failed to give the 30day notice pursuant to s 70 (6).The
requirement to give the 30day notice is mandatory. Since
the Local Authority relied on this provision, they are
required to comply with the Act. The judge commented
that there was a breach of the law by the local
authority and this was conceded by the lawyer for the
local authority and the state legal adviser.
The state legal adviser replied that there is no
evidence that the plaintiffs were aborigines and that
the plaintiffs had failed to prove this fact. We
rebutted that the State Legal Adviser did not file any
affidavits to challenge the fact that the plaintiffs
were Temiars and since they had not filed any
affidavits, it is late for them to challenge the
identity of the plaintiffs. Further the lawyer for the
Local Authority had admitted that the plaintiffs were
Temiars.
The judge finally understood the issues that we had
raised in our written submission. The judge has now
fixed the matter for decision on 15th July 2009.
subra
Again this
case is postponed to 15th July 2009,
though
the church was torn down on 4th. June 2007.
From the
High Court in Kota Baru
The frustration of the Orang Asli awaiting the court's
decision since the church was torn down by the local
authority since the 4th of June 2007 . 
Again this
case is postponed to 17th June 2009,
though
the church was torn down on 4th. June 2007.
|
