This is a reference under s 36(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Rev 1992) (the LAA), in respect of the compulsory acquisition by the State Government of Perak of small parts of Lots 142 and 771, both of Mukim Kamunting, Taiping for pembinaan kolam air untuk rancangan bekalan air Kerian, Larut dan Matang II. The total area of Lot 142 is approximately 9 acres 2 roods 38 poles of which only 0.112 hectares was acquired; whereas the total area of Lot 771 is exactly 34 acres, of which 0.430 hectares was acquired.

The date of the publication of the declaration under s 8 of the LAA was 11 May 1989 vide Government Gazette No 500, and it is that date, therefore, which is material for purposes of determining its fair market value. It is also pertinent to point out that the LAA provides that where only part of a parcel of land is acquired, the remaining part of the land which is not acquired must necessarily be considered for the purpose of determining market value ( Bertam Consolidated Rubber Co Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue, Province Wellesley

Now, both the lots are located adjacent to one another, to the right along Jalan Kamunting, at approximately the 11u2 milestone from Taiping town but more inclined towards Kamunting town. To be precise, Lot 142 faces Jalan Kamunting approximately 2km to the north of Taiping town. Bordering Lot 142 is a housing scheme known as Happy Park. There are other housing schemes in the area such as Taman Zenith, Taman Taiping and Taman Taiping Baru. Lot 142 is also irregular in shape with 220m of it facing Jalan Kamunting, overgrown with lallang and other wild vegetation, whereas Lot 771 is a second layer lot, adjacent to and bordering Lot 142. Its terrain irregular to the front and hilly towards the back portion. Lot 771 is overgrown with belukar and other wild vegetation. The main services like electricity, water and telephone are available in the vicinity but they are not extended to both lots in question. Taxis and buses ply along the stretch of Jalan Kamunting.

At the inquiry before the land administrator held at the Taiping Land Office on 3 and 4 August 1990, the land administrator awarded RM12,320 for 0.112 hectares, being the acquired portion of Lot 142 and RM28,090 for 0.430 hectares, being the acquired portion of Lot 771. The acquired portions are hereinafter referred to as the scheduled lands. The awards were made after the land administrator had considered the valuation reports of both the private valuer and the government valuer.

It is now trite law that under the LAA the scheduled lands are to be valued as a whole. Thus, in Chuah Say Hai & Ors v Collector of Land Revenue, Kuala Lumpur , the trial judge valued the whole of the 23 acres as a single unit even though the totality of the land acquired were held by the applicants in seven separate titles for areas varying between approximately 11 acres and just under half an acre. This approach was re-affirmed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Collector of Land Revenue v Alagappa Chettiar; Collector of Land Revenue v Ong Thye Eng . It would, therefore, be in order to value the scheduled lands in Lots 142 and 771 as a single unit, more so as they were gazetted for acquisition on the same day and bear the same government gazette number.

The objector, being the land owner, must prove that the award of the land administrator is inadequate. If he fails to do so, the award of the land administrator stands. But if he succeeds in adducing prima facie evidence, then the land administrator must support the award by producing credible evidence. There are numerous authorities on this point. As a starting point is the oft-quoted classical case of Assistant Development Officer, Bombay v Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori especially at p 364, (the principles applicable in Malaysia are the same as that found under the Indian Land Acquisition Act 1894) where Broomfield J said:

The party claiming enhanced compen