Ampang Park Shopping Centre

KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 20): The Kuala Lumpur High Court today granted leave for a judicial review application filed by the lot owners of the Ampang Park Shopping Centre (pictured) against Putrajaya.

The owners filed the judicial review over Putrajaya approving the shopping mall’s land acquisition for the MRT station to be built there.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jason Ng, told reporters outside the courtroom that the High Court has also granted an interim stay against the land administrators from possessing the land or issuing any awards on it.

“The court has granted leave to hear the application for the judicial review. This is very good news for all.”

He said it was unclear how long the interim stay would apply, but added that he would ask for an extension during case management on Feb 29.

Ng said while awaiting case management, the landowners would negotiate with MRT on what action to take next.

The decision today was made in chambers.

At least 62 land owners filed the judicial review on Jan 8.

The Malaysian Insider reported that at least 100 shop owners and tenants protested against the MRT pedestrian walkway scheduled to be built by MRT Corp underneath the mall.

The 42-year-old mall is scheduled to be demolished for MRT Corp to build the Ampang MRT station.

The underground walkway will require the mall to be demolished. The station itself will be built next to the mall.

MRT Corp had given Ampang Park owners two options: sign a mutual agreement with the project owner or acquiesce to the land acquisition process. Both options will involve the demolition of the mall. -- The Malaysian Insider

Interested in property investments in Ampang after reading this article? Click here to check out the properties there.

SHARE
RELATED POSTS
  1. Over 10,000 units of Residensi Madani, Wilayah to be built in Putrajaya — minister
  2. CTOS seeks stay of execution of High Court’s judgement over inaccurate credit rating
  3. High Court ruling on credit score formulation could invite more lawsuits against CTOS, say lawyers