The court ruled that judicial discretion in land compensation cases must adhere to assessors' opinions, which are valid under law and do not infringe constitutional rights to fair compensation.

[1] In this judgment Appeal No W-01-21-2006 will be referred as "the Land Reference Appeal" whilst Appeal No W-01-247-2010 will be referred as "the 2010 appeal". Unless expressly mentioned, reference to any legal provision refers to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("the Act").

[2] What led to the land reference which is the subject matter of the Land Reference Appeal, and the appellants filing an application for judicial review on 4 March 2009 to set aside the decision of the High Court judge dated 15 December 2005 in respect of the land reference, (the subject matter of the 2010 appeal) was this.

Kuala Lumpur Land Reference No S3(S6)-15-13-2001

[3] The appellants' lands [(ie, Lots 176 held under Grant No 36856, Lot No 267 held under Grant No 28925 and Lot 268, held under Grant No 28926 situated at s 72, Jalan Berhala, Brickfields, Bandar Kuala Lumpur ("the said lands")] were subjected to acquisition under the Act for the purposes of a project known as "Projek KL Monorail" ("the project").

[4] The said lands were gazetted for acquisition pursuant to s 8 on 17 February 2000 vide Warta Kerajaan Persekutuan No: 1636. The total land area of the said lands to be acquired was 165,217. 92 square feet. It is not in issue that there were then 109 squatters in occupation of the said lands

[5] The Land Administrator conducted an enquiry pursuant to s 12 to determine the amount of compensation payable to the appellants arising from the said acquisition. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Land Administrator awarded compensation to the appellants at a rate of RM193. 61 per square foot making a total award of RM31,987,351. 45.

[6] The appellants objected to the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Administrator by filing Form N requesting the Land Administrator to refer the matter to the Court for its determination pursuant to s 38. The appellants contended that the compensation awarded was inadequate and that an award at a rate of RM650 per square foot as held out by their valuers, Messrs KGV-Lambert Smith Hampton, was more appropriate. The Land Administrator then referred the matter to the Registrar, Kuala Lumpur High Court by submitting Form O, which was duly registered on 15 December 2001 as Kuala Lumpur High Court Land Reference No S3(S6)-15-13-2001.

[7] The High Court judge hearing the land reference sat with two assessors ie, Encik Phuah Tick Lai, Director, Valuation Department, Pahang ("the Government Valuer") and Encik Mohd Basri Rahmat, a Director from HASB Consultants Sdn Bhd. ("the Private Valuer") to determine the adequacy of the compensation payable to the appellants. Based on the documentary evidence, including the valuation reports of both parties and the submissions presented, the Government Valuer and Private Valuer gave their respective opinion in writing to the High Court judge as to the market value of the said lands at the time of acquisition.

[8] Both the Government Valuer and Private Valuer applied the comparative method of valuation. Both also applied the same comparable. Factors as to location, size, date of transaction, development potential and the existence of squatters on the said lands were taken into account and adjustments made which they considered appropriate.

[9] The valuation of the Government Valuer and Private Valuer differed slightly. The Government Valuer valued the said lands at a rate of RM198 per square foot. Based on the Government Valuer's valuation the compensation payable to the appellants was RM32,713,577. 32. As for the Private Valuer, he valued the said lands at a higher rate of RM201. 60 per square foot. The compensation payable to the appellants applying the Private Valuer's valuation was RM33,307,932. 05. There was accordingly a difference of