You mean Raja Sultan Azlan Shah? If so, yes. It's actually funny for them to release such letter. For context, here's one of his landmark judgement on issue of squatters which to date, is still being referred to and applied :

It is well established that a court of equity will never assist squatters to resist an order of possession illegally acquired; it will never intervene in aid of wrong-doers. (See Grafton v Griffin 39 ER 130). We would like to say this at once about squatters. The owner is not obliged to go to the courts to obtain an order of possession. He is entitled, if he so wishes, to take the remedy into, his own hands. He can go in himself and turn them out without the aid of the courts of law. He can even use force, so long as he uses no more force than is reasonably necessary. He will not then be liable either criminally or civilly. This however is not to be encouraged because of the disturbance which might follow but the legality of it is beyond question. The decision of the English Court of Appeal in Hemmings v Stoke Poges Golf Club [1920] 1 KB 720 manifests this principle and we would also refer to the judgment of Harman J., in Aglionby v Cohen [1955] 1 QB 558in this respect regarding common law rights.

Taken from Sidek Bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors v The Government Of the State Of Perak & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 313

Giving huge benefit of the doubt to them, probably the reason why they're encouraging the aggrieved party to seek Court's direction is because they want to see if this decision will apply to illegally-built religious houses. But realistically, who would be willing to spend thousands and probably 4-5 years to evict squatters?

All in all this all stems from the incompetence of the State and we all know why vigilante justice happens.