Waiting game: The case of the sixty-two owners of Ampang Park against MRT corp, over a landgrab of the mall is pending court decision.
KUALA LUMPUR: Thirty-nine strata owners and tenants of the Ampang Park Shopping Centre here succeeded in getting their interim stay to the plan to demolish the iconic mall to make way for the construction of the MRT Line 2 project to Oct 20.
“The interim stay has been extended from Aug 16 to Oct 20,” lawyer Jason Ng Kau told reporters after meeting the judge in the chambers.
“This means, the land administrator cannot issue ‘form K’ to take possession of Ampang Park and demolish it,” he added.
He said his clients would appeal to the Federal Court if they lose in Court of Appeal.
The High Court also fixed the same date to hear the proper stay application.
The interim stay was earlier granted by the high court on Aug 16 and expired yesterday.
The Court of Appeal has also fixed Oct 5 for the case management before the president of Court of Appeal fixed a date for hearing of their three interlocutory appeals.
The three interlocutory appeals include Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Sdn Bhd’s (MRT Corp) application to become an intervener in the case.
Ampang Park traders had also requested for the MRT construction plan and other documents which was not granted by the High Court.
An appeal for the discovery has already been filed.
“The High Court had also dismissed our judicial review on June 30 and we are appealing against the decision,” he said, adding that all three appeals most probably would be heard together in the Court of Appeal.
In the court papers filed on Jan 8, the applicants, who owned more than one strata title, sought a declaration that the approval of the state authority for the acquisition of their lands for the MRT project was unconstitutional, unlawful and invalid.
The MRT Line 2 has a total length of 52.2km, of which 13.5km will be underground.
They objected to the plan to demolish the shopping centre, which had been operational since 1973 and has 253 business lots.
MRT’s management had issued a notice asking them to vacate the building by April this year.
Did you find this article insightful?
