Back
2022 MarsdenLR 98
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SRI SELTRA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LEMBAGA LEBUHRAYA MALAYSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Appeal No: B-01(A)-121-02/2020]
The court emphasized that the principle of adequate compensation under the Land Acquisition Act permits adjustments beyond withheld amounts, reflecting market conditions and fair compensation standards.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Section 29A – An appeal regarding compensation for land acquisition – Adequate compensation principles governed by constitutional provisions – Land Reference Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal, reduced award amount from RM240,305,083.33 to RM166,365,058.05 awarding excess sum refund to Respondent – Appeals upheld based on substantive law principles relating to land compensation. (Paras 20-24, 57-61)
Facts of the case: The Appellant, owner of land acquired for a public project, contested the initial compensation amount awarded by the Land Administrator, which was found excessive by the High Court after examining valuers’ assessment.
Findings of Court: The learned Judicial Commissioner (JC) determined the compensation amount based on suitable comparables reflecting market value, reducing the original award significantly.
Issues: Was the compensation awarded excessive? Could the High Court order repayment beyond the withheld amount? Did the Appellant establish a prima facie case concerning the excessive valuation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that adequate compensation must align with the principle of equivalence, allowing for sufficient adjustments reflecting actual market conditions; the High Court has jurisdiction to adjust beyond the amount withheld.
Result: Appeal dismissed; Cross-Appeal allowed with directions to refund the excess sum.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal filed by the Appellant, Sri Seltra Sdn Bhd against the whole of the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") dated 6 February 2020 in the matter of the Shah Alam High Court Land Reference No BA-15-158-06/2018 ("the Decision").
[2] The 1st Respondent, Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia has filed a cross-appeal by way of a Notice of Cross-Appeal dated 21 August 2020 (the "Cross-Appeal"), seeking to have part of the Decision varied, to the extent that the sum which had been reduced by the learned JC, which exceeds the sum withheld, amounting to RM13,863,754.45 ("Excess Sum") and/or interest thereon, be directed to be refunded by the Appellant to the 1st Respondent.
[3] Having considered the appeal records and the submissions of the parties, this Court had dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal with costs. Our decision was unanimous and these are the grounds for our decision.
The Salient Facts
[4] The Appellant is the registered proprietor of a parcel of land held under Lot 43255, PN 17354, Mukim Ampang, Daerah Ulu Langat (the "said land"). The said land is subject to a lease of 99 years, expiring on 21 December 2096.
[5] Part of the said land, about 173,284.27 square meters, was acquired for the purposes of "Projek Lebuhraya Bertingkat Sungai Besi - Ulu Kelang (SUKE)" ("said Project") vide the Selangor Government Gazette No 4810 dated 9 December 2016. It is not in dispute that the relevant date for valuation of the said land is 9 December 2016.
[6] On 24 May 2017, an Inquiry was held by the 2nd Respondent, Pentadbir Tanah Dan Daerah Hulu Langat ("PTG") in respect of the acquisition of part of the said land (the "Inquiry"). The PTG then made an Award of compensation for market value and Injurious Affection occasioned to the said land amounting to a total sum of RM240,305,083.33, vide the Notice of Award and Offer of Compensation in Form H dated 24 May 2017 (the "Award").
[7] Whilst the Appellant had accepted the Award without protest, the 1st Respondent, being the acquiring authority for the said Project, lodged an objection in Form N dated 19 June 2017 against the Award ("said Objection"), which was thereafter referred to the Shah Alam High Court.
[8] In light of the said Objection, and pursuant to s 29A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (" LAA "), the 1st Respondent paid to the Appellant, through the PTG, the sum of RM180,228,812.50, being 75% of the Award, on 13 July 2017.
[9] The sum of approximately RM60,076,270.83, equivalent to 25% of the Award, has been withheld until the matter of compensation is fully determined by the High Court.
[10] On or about 13 August 2018, the Appellant filed a Notice of Application, inter alia, to be added as a party to the Land Reference, which was dismissed by the High Court. On 19 July 2019, the Court of Appeal had recorded a Consent Order to allow the Appellant to be added as the 2nd Respondent in the Land Reference proceedings.
[11] On 6 February 2020, the Land Reference was heard before the learned JC and the learned JC decided that the adequate compensation for the acquisition of the said land is RM166,365,058.05 only and as such, directed that the Award be reduced by RM73,940,025.2817.
[12] The Appellant is now appealing against the reduction of the Award, whilst the 1st Respondent is seeking a refund of the Excess Sum in the Cross-Appeal.
The Decision Of The High Court
[13] The learned JC provided a summary of the parties' assessment of the market value of the said land and was of the opinion that there is a very wide disparity between the Appellant's and the 1st Respondent's valuers' assessment:
[14] The learned JC also took note that from the reports prepared by the assessors who were assisting her in the land reference proceedings, both the Government Assessor and the Private Assessor were unanimous in their opinion that the calculation of the fair and reasonable amount of compensation prepared by the government and the App
