84 Chapter 6 | FINDINGS - SABAH Loss of Records and Overlapping Land Applications 6.13 The Inquiry received 62 cases regarding overlapping applications, which not only occurred among private individuals but also in the supposedly systematic land schemes of the Government. Nine complaints were also made about lost applications. In such instances, the Land Office usually issues an instruction to re-apply although it admitted to the Inquiry that this was procedurally incorrect. Although the Inquiry could not confirm allegations that some companies applied earlier than the natives’ second land application, these cases warrant further investigation. 6.14 Speaking on behalf of his wife, Mr Yunus Kimin (W11) (case no. KG12) said that an application for title over their NCR land was made in 1975 pursuant to which they received a directive from the Keningau LSD to clear the land boundaries. In 1988 however, they were asked to re-apply because the plan which they had earlier submitted was unclear, to which they dutifully re-applied. However “... sometime in 2003, I was surprised and disappointed when informed by the Keningau Lands and Surveys Department that a Registered Survey Plan (RSP) on my NCR land has been approved to three individuals whom we do not know”. The land has since been sold by these individuals to a company, which then harvested the oil palm planted by W11’s family. According to W11 who is a Native Chief, any notice under section 13 would have come to his attention since his office (the native court) is in the same building as the land office. 6.15 In response, Keningau ACLR, Ms Kamsiah bt Abdul Jalil (W101) said that because the plan with the 1975 application was unclear, the application was rejected. The second application was also rejected on 27 September 1997 because by then, they had received an earlier application made by one Jeny bt Kabun. W101 advised W11 to take the matter to court. 6.16 Such problems of overlapping land applications not only occurred among private individuals but also in supposedly systematic land schemes by the Government. Mr Marain Undat (W14) (case no. P61) of Kg. Mangkadait, Ranau told the Inquiry: “The land was surveyed for a settlement scheme to give an opportunity to the hardcore poor to cultivate in accordance with their traditional agricultural practices. The processing and division of titles into lots were carried out in the office without detailed monitoring and investigation of the land to ascertain whether there were NCR claims, and without informing the original settlers on that land”. 6.17 Mr Mahalil bin Mutalib (W16) (case no. SD10) of Kg. Kenang-Kenganan, Tongod lamented that “... the customary land applied for was surveyed by Lands and Surveys in 1997. In 2002, the Lands and Surveys cancelled that survey in 1997 and we were asked to make a new application”. W16, together with other villagers subsequently submitted new applications in 2003 (Land Applications no. 2003090319 – 0333) but were surprised to find out that the land had been approved to Ms. Zahara bt Abdullah and 39 others who then sold the land to Tanahmas Sdn Bhd. In this case, the Tongod ACLR (W110) explained that the loss of land applications referred to by W16 could be due of the shift of the LSD office from Kinabatangan to Tongod. W110 said the application from Zahara was received in 1975 and approved in the same year. 6.18 Besides these cases, other examples during the Public Hearings of multiple applications included those overlapping with other individuals (case number P1), and companies, GLCs or State development agencies (case numbers KM78, KM33, SD43, TW43, TW26, SD32 and P51). chapter 6_a4.indd 84 7/5/13 6:47 PM