Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2044
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ROZIAH YUSOF – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent
[Land Reference No: WA-15-10-03/2022]
The comparison method is the preferred approach for determining compensation in compulsory land acquisition, reflecting true market value while ensuring fairness and compliance with statutory principles.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Section 8 and Section 37 - Compulsory acquisition of land for redevelopment - Compensation awarded by Land Administrator of RM241,960.00 contested by applicant based on independent valuation of RM660,640.00 - Court upheld the award, finding it reflected true market value and complied with statutory principles. (Paras 1, 4, 41)
(B) Valuation Methods - Comparison Method deemed appropriate for assessing market value of individual strata units; Residual Method rejected as speculative and unsuitable. (Paras 9, 25, 39)
(C) Principle of Equivalence - Compensation must restore landowners to financial position as if acquisition had not occurred, ensuring fairness in the valuation process. (Paras 35, 36)
(D) Procedural Compliance - Jurisdiction confirmed as procedural requirements under LAA 1960 were satisfied by both parties. (Paras 11, 12) (E) Burden of Proof - Applicant must establish prima facie case through valuer's report; burden shifts upon discharge of initial proof. (Paras 13, 41) (F) Ancillary Claims - Award included reasonable ancillary claims; speculative claims by applicant rejected for lack of evidence. (Paras 34, 41) (G) Final Orders - Market value affirmed at RM5,060.00 per square metre; other awards maintained; applicant to pay assessors. (Paras 43)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compulsory land acquisition details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over compensation valuation. (Para 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. procedural compliance with laa. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. burden of proof in land reference. (Para 13) |
| 5. government assessor's valuation approach. (Para 15 , 18) |
| 6. private assessor's valuation analysis. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. consensus on valuation methods. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 8. comparison method as preferred valuation. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. residual method's speculative nature. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 10. ancillary claims substantiation. (Para 34) |
| 11. principle of equivalence in compensation. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 12. speculative nature of redevelopment claims. (Para 39) |
| 13. court's affirmation of compensation award. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
Introduction
[1] The present land reference arises from the compulsory acquisition of Lot 2195, s 41 PN 30711/M1/1/6, situated in Kuala Lumpur ("Scheduled Land"). The acquisition was for the purpose of the Kampung Sungai Baru redevelopment project generally known as "Projek Pembangunan Semula Kampung Sungai Baru Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur". This acquisition was made pursuant to a declaration under s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (" LAA 1960") vide Gazette Notification No 9412 dated 21 June 2021.
[2] The applicant is the next-of-kin and successor in-title to the late Yusof bin Hassan, the beneficial owner of the Scheduled Land.
[3] Pursuant to an enquiry, the Land Administrator made an award of RM241,960.00 in compensation pursuant to Form G dated 15 November 2021.
[4] The applicant was not satisfied with the quantum of the award contending that the compensation did not reflect the true market value of the Scheduled Land. The applicant relied on a significantly higher independent valuation that assessed the Scheduled Land at RM660,640.00.
Factual Background
[5] The Scheduled Land is a low-cost apartment unit with a built-up area of 41 square metres. It is held under a 99-year leasehold tenure with a remaining lease period of 57 years expiring on 10 October 2078.
[6] The Scheduled Land is located within the Kampung Sungai Baru redevelopment area. Its location, tenure and specific use as a low-cost apartment were central to the valuation exercise undertaken by the Land Administrator and the subsequent dispute regarding compensation.
[7] The Land Administrator adopted the comparison method of valuation relying on recent transactions of comparable properties within the vicinity to assess the market value of RM200,000.00. Ancillary claims brought the total compensation to RM241,960.00.
[8] Conversely, the applicant's valuer employed multiple valuation methods, including the residual method, to account for the redevelopment potential of the property under the "Pelan Induk Kampung Baru" ("PIKB"). This led to the significantly higher valuation of RM660,640.00.
Analysis And Findings
[9] The dispute revolves around the competing methodologies employed by the parties' respective valuers. The Government's valuer prioritized the comparison method while the private valuer relied heavily on speculative redevelopment potential under the PIKB.
[10] The primary issue for determination is whether the compensation awarded adequately reflects the market value of the Scheduled Land and whether the valuation method adopted by the Land Administrator was appropriate under the circumstances.
Procedural compliance
[11] This Court first considered whether the procedural requirements under the LAA 1960 were satisfied. Following an enquiry conducted by the respondent, a written award in Form G dated 15 November 2021 was prepared detailing the award of RM241,960.00. The applicant filed Form N on 24 December 2021 pursuant to s 37 of the 1960 formally objecting to the quantum of the award within the period prescribed by s 38 of the 1960. Thereafter, the Land Administrator filed Form O on 11 March 2022, referring the matter to Court pursuant to s 38(5) of the 1960.
