Back
2025 MarsdenLR 279
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ROZEL CORPORATION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent
[Land Reference No: WA-15-18-08/2022]
The court affirmed that compensation for land acquisition must be substantiated with evidence of actual damages, rejecting speculative claims for future losses and emphasizing adherence to statutory guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Sections 2(d), 36(4), and 38(1) - Compulsory acquisition of land - The court upheld the Respondent's award of RM1,260,522.78, determining that the Applicant failed to establish grounds for higher compensation - The court emphasized the necessity of proving actual damages due to acquisition, including loss of business and safety concerns - The court found that the existing building did not require demolition and that claims for future losses were speculative - The Applicant's claims for improvements and loss of business were rejected as unproven and not supported by the evidence presented. (Paras 19-24)
(B) Procedural impropriety and irrationality - The court clarified that the proceedings were not for judicial review but a reference under the LAA 1960, thus procedural impropriety claims were dismissed. (Paras 21-22)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant contested the Respondent's compensation award for land acquired for road widening, arguing procedural impropriety and inadequate compensation for safety, business losses, and improvements. The court found no basis for these claims. (Paras 8-12)
Findings of Court:
The court maintained the Respondent's award, stating that the Applicant did not substantiate claims for increased compensation or procedural impropriety. (Paras 19-24)
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of compensation for land acquisition, procedural impropriety, and the necessity of a building setback for safety. (Paras 12-18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for higher compensation and that the existing building's safety was not compromised by the acquisition. (Paras 19-24)
Result: The Respondent's award was upheld, and the Applicant was ordered to pay the assessors' fees.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenancy and land acquisition details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. compensation award process. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. applicant's grounds of appeal. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. assessors' opinions and submissions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's analysis of claims. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. final judgment and orders. (Para 23 , 24) |
[1] By a Tenancy Agreement dated 7 December 1999 between Asia Life (M) Berhad and JKL Furnishing Sdn Bhd., the former as the registered and beneficial owner of the land identified as Lot No PT 237, H.S.(D) 98215, s 88A, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur ('Land') with a detached building thereon bearing postal address No. 240-1, Jalan Ampang, 50250 Kuala Lumpur ('Subject Property'), had agreed to rent the Subject Property to the latter at a monthly rental of RM8,000.00 from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001.
[2] JKL Furnishing Sdn Bhd then changed its name to Rozel Corporation Sdn Bhd ('Applicant') and Asia Life (M) Berhad later came to be known as Tokio Marine Life Insurance Malaysia Bhd.
[3] The tenancy continued with the relevant Tenancy Agreement for present purposes being the Tenancy Agreement dated 4 March 2021 between Tokio Marine Life Insurance Malaysia Bhd and the Applicant wherein the Applicant exercised the option to renew the tenancy of the Subject Property from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023 at a monthly rental rate of RM23,284.80 for the 1st year. RM23,750.50 for the 2nd year and RM24,225.51 for the 3rd year.
[4] The Applicant has been using the double storey building on the Land as its furniture showroom.
[5] The land area is 7,858.600 square metres (sqm) and part of the same ie 387.088 sqm was compulsorily acquired for Projek Pelebaran Jalan Awam sedia ada di Jalan Ampang, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur vide Federal Government Gazette No 897 dated 14 January 2022 ('Said Acquisition'). The remaining land area is 7,471.512 sqm.
[6] The party who applied for the land acquisition was Pedoman Ikhtisas Sdn Bhd ('PISB'). PISB is the developer of a project known as Pavillion Embassy which comprises of luxury residences, services suites and corporate suites.
[7] The Respondent conducted an enquiry pursuant to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486] (' LAA I960') in order to ascertain the amount of compensation to be paid to the Applicant for the Said Acquisition. At the end of the enquiry, the Respondent made an award of compensation for the Applicant in the total sum of RM1,260,522.78.
[8] The Applicant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent's award, then filed an objection under s 37 LAA 1960 in Form N dated 15 July 2022 requiring the Respondent to refer the matter to the Court for determination as provided under subsection 38(1) of the 1960. The Applicant's objection was duly referred to the Court vide the Respondent's Form O dated 3 August 2022, which was filed on 16 August 2022.
[9] This matter first came before me for hearing on 21 October 2024 as there was no Judge in this Court following the retirement of my predecessor. Upon the request by the parties, the hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to discuss an amicable settlement. However, this did not come to fruition and the hearing proceeded on 20 January 2025 with the Applicant being given time to file brief supplemental submission on the issue of alleged procedural impropriety, and reply submission by the Respondent, if any.
[10] Having read the written submissions by the learned counsels for the Applicant and the Respondent, the Valuation Reports prepared by Jabatan Penilaian Dan Perkhidmatan Harta ('JPPH') as the Government Valuer ('GV') and KGC International Property Consultants (M) Sdn Bhd as the Private Valuer ('PV'); the Opinions by the Government Assessor ('GA') and Private Assessor ('PA'); and the Bundle of Documents as per encl 4, on 7 March 2025, I decided that the Respondent's award is to be maintained.
[11] The Applicant is dissatisfied
