70 Chapter 5 | JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT enter State land for the purpose of establishing NCR since such rights were exercised from time immemorial without having to seek permission from anyone. 5.9 The Collector may require a holder of a customary tenure to take out title by entry in the Native Title register that is kept in each district. Any such entry requires payment of the prescribed fees and a copy of the entry, on a prescribed form signed by the Collector, to be given to the owner.206 If immediate demarcation of the area is impracticable, the Collector shall authorize an entry into the Field Register, regarding the use and occupancy of such land. Like a provisional lease, such entry will specify the extent of the right and describe as nearly as may be the situation of the land, and after demarcation, an entry is then made in the Native Title Register. Prior to demarcation, the entry in the Field Register is as good as a Native Title. 5.10 The High Court in 2007 ruled that Rambilin was entitled to possession of land, directed Ruddy to deliver vacant possession to her and awarded damages and mesne profits to Rambilin since 2006. The High Court ordered a proper inquiry to be held. At the inquiry, in the face of the High Court’s determination of the facts, the ACLR accepted that the land was State land, but the Director as an appellate tribunal determined otherwise, which meant that Rambilin could not establish NCR on that land. Rambilin again appealed to the High Court in Rambilin v Magudar bin Ambit, Director of Lands and the ACLR.207 Dato’ Abdul Rahman Sebli J held that Rambilin had acquired native customary rights to the subject land and was entitled to be issued with the appropriate and necessary document of title to the land. On the appeal, the Court of Appeal did not disturb the ruling of the High Court that natives have a right to create NCR without permission from the State.208 5.11 This point was further explored in Andawan bin Ansapi & Ors v Public Prosecutor,209 which dealt with the status of native occupiers of forest reserves In that case, the Kota Kinabalu High Court decided that natives have the right to stay on the land to which they have asserted NCR, even in forest reserves established under the Sabah Forest Enactment 1968. Under section 20 (1) of the Enactment, unless a person is expressly authorized to cultivate or to clear or dig up any land or to remove forest produce in a Forest Reserve, he is guilty of a crime. The judge overturned the Tenom Magistrate Court’s imposition of fines on six indigenous Imahit villagers who were accused of encroaching into the forest reserve to grow hill rice in 2009. They were held to have “express authority” to remain on the land as they possessed customary rights in the land. The High Court struck out the charges and directed the Forest Department to return the fine of RM6,000 to the villagers. This was a clear statement of the continued existence of native customary rights in forest reserves not only as rights and privileges that are conceded under the enactment but also as pre-existing rights under their customary laws. David Wong J spoke of native connection to land and how they are “part of the land”. 5.12 The State also cannot revoke an established native reserve without paying compensation. In the case of Johnson bin Sipulou & 5 Ors v The State of Government of Sabah & Anor, a revocation of a native reserve known as the Kampong Kayu Madang Native Reserve was challenged by native occupiers of the Reserve. They sought a declaration that the State’s 206 SLO 67(2) 207 OM No. BK1-25-1/1 of 2012 208 File K41-128 of 2010 209 File K41-128 of 2010 chapter 5_a4.indd 70 7/5/13 6:47 PM