The mandating provision of s 60(1)(a) requires valuation for compensation claims to be based on the date of notification, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements.

Introduction

[1] This appeal is directed against the decision of the High Court in which the learned judge awarded compensation for compulsory acquisition of two parcels of land belonging to the respondents by increasing the awards given by the Superintendent of Lands and Surveys, Samarahan Division, Sarawak ("the appellant").

[2] The first parcel of land, comprising an area of 15,297 square meters, belongs to the 1st respondent and is described as Muara Tuang Occupation Ticket 3677, Lot 381 Block 1 Samarahan Land District. It is situated at Gunong Tinggi, Entengan. The 2nd respondent is the proprietor of the second parcel of land situated at Sungai Melaban, Kuching, with an area of 7,932 square meters, described as Lot 785 Samarahan Land District.

Summary Of Material Facts

[3] On 12 January 1995, the Minister, pursuant to s 47(1) of the Sarawak Land Code (Cap 81) ("the Land Code"), caused a public notice to be issued vide the Sarawak Government Gazette Notification No 89 that the land which is situated at Muara Tuang, Kota Samarahan, including both parcels of land ("the subject lands") belonging to the respondents, were likely to be needed for the construction of a road.

[4] Under s 48 of the Land Code, the Minister may make a declaration subsequently if the land is needed for a public purpose. Thus, in the present case more than seven years and nine months after the public notice was issued under s 47, a declaration under s 48 was made by the Minister on 24 October 2002 to the effect that the subject lands were needed for UiTM extension site.

[5] The next statutory step in the acquisition proceedings which is required to be taken in this case was the issuance of a notice by the appellant pursuant to s 49 of the Land Code stating the Government's intention to take possession of the subject lands and that claims for compensation could be made to him. The notice should also require all persons interested in the subject lands to appear before the appellant at a time and place specified in such notice. This notice, we find, was only issued on 20 April 2007 requiring the respondents to attend the inquiry on 17 May 2007, which was a lapse of 12 years and four months reckoned from the date the notice under s 47 was issued.

[6] The inquiry was conducted on the day so fixed pursuant to s 51 of the Land Code. However, the respondents did not attend the inquiry. The appellant thereupon in the exercise of the power conferred under s 51, made an award of RM7.00 per square meter for the subject lands with the total compensation of RM112,969.00 awarded to the 1st respondent for Lot 381 and RM56,610.00 awarded to the 2nd respondent for Lot 785. The appellant in due course took possession of the subject lands pursuant to s 53 on 7 February 2008.

[7] Both respondents accepted the compensation under protest and consequently applied to the appellant under s 56 of the Land Code requiring the matter to be referred for the determination of the High Court.

High Court's Decision

[8] The respondents each filed a separate land reference to the High Court. However, upon application, the High Court ordered the two cases to be heard together.

[9] In a nutshell, the issue for determination before the High Court was whether the relevant date of valuation in determining the market value of the subject lands was the date of the publication of the notice pursuant to s 47, which was 12 January 1995, or the date of the inquiry conducted and the award de