(delivering the grounds of decision of the court): In a land acquisition reference to the learned judge (Harun J.), the award of $23,561,930.00 made by the Collector in respect of the lands acquired (C.T. 1065 for Lot No. 1, C.T. 6144 for Lot No. 18 and C.T. 6987 for Lot No. 20 section 51, Grant 2409 for Lot Nos. 7 and 10 and Grant 2789 for Lot No. 11 section 71) was increased by the leamed judge by 10%. The learned judge also disallowed the surveyor's fees based on 2½% of the total award or such other sum or percentage as the court might deem fit. The appeal was against both these orders.

As regards the award, we find that the learned judge did not give due and adequate consideration to the development potential of the lands acquired. The lands were acquired for the public purpose of building a government department, for public utilities and for housing and commercial.

The lands in question were all located in the prestigious area of Kenny Hill and adjacent to the Prime Minister's Department complex and within a short distance from an already developed commercial area. The architect and city planner gave evidence (which was unchallenged) that the lands were in a prestigious location and that despite their hilly characteristics were suitable for high quality development. There was, according to the city planner, a need or demand for such quality housing. The development proposed by the appellants would cover only 12 acres of the 81.38 acres of the lands, that is, only 14% of the site and the rest would be kept for space, recreation and landscaping (PW1's evidence, pp. 20–22 of the appeal record).

There is no written judgment but it would seem that the learned judge ignored the city planner's evidence and stated in his sketchy note that because of the hilly terrain of the lands "bungalow development not likely — all the land that can be used has been used for bungalow. Remainder of the land cannot be used."

The learned judge, however, correctly stated that the government valuation did not take into account the potential for mixed development for condominium and commercial uses but was not totally correct in holding that the potential for mixed development was limited.

We therefore allowed the appeal on this point and increased from 10% to 20% as additional to the total award as the more accurate figure to reflect the development potentials of the lands.

As regards the appellant's dissatisfaction on the learned judge's refusal to award the surveyor's fee, we are unable to agree with the appellant as we find nothing in the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and the Schedule thereto to justify the making of an award to include the surveyor's fee. Consolidated Plantation Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kelang [1984] 1 MLJ 273 is not an authority for allowing the surveyor's fee as the Federal Court judgment clearly states that it was confined only to the question of adequacy of the award of "$231,000.00 as the cost of turfing as compensation for the loss of water supply to the mill". See judgment at p. 274.

The learned judge in this case was correct in refusing to make an award to include the surveyor's fee and we accordingly dismissed the appeal on this point.