Raus Sharif J:

This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the High Court Kuching on an award for a compulsory acquisition by the Government of Sarawak under Part IV of the Sarawak Land Code (Land Code).

This appeal was heard and dismissed on 28 June 2004. We now give our reasons.

The subject land, at the material time was known as Lot 438, Block 4 Sentah Segu Land District. It was a vacant piece of land located at 14th 15th Mile, Pennissen Road, Kuching measured 42.06 hectares in size, which is equivalent to 105.26 acres.

The subject land was first placed under s. 47 of the Land Code notification on 7 November 1974. Subsequently the subject land was placed under another s. 47 notification on 29 March 1990. The notification under s. 48 was imposed on the subject land on 8 October 1992. Under the s. 48 notification, it was stated that the subject land was acquired for public purposes, namely the "New Prison site".

On 19 September 1992 an inquiry was held by the acting Superintendent of Lands and Survey, Kuching Division (Superintendent). The Superintendent awarded a compensation of RM984,060 for the acquisition of the subject land. Before the High Court, a further additional sum of RM204,480 was awarded as compensation for the acquisition of the subject land.

Before us, the first complaint raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was the learned judge's application of s. 47 notification of 29 March 1990 as the valuation date of the subject land. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the learned judge should have used the s. 48 notification of 8 October 1992 as the valuation date. This is because, according to the learned counsel, under s. 47 notification dated 29 March 1990, it was stated that the purpose was for road construction and improvement while under the notification under s. 48, the subject land was acquired for the purpose of a new prison.

This issue was dealt by the learned judge as follows:.

However, Mr. Kho Lit Kiat, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that 1992, the year of the publication of the s. 48 notification should be taken because the s. 47 notification adverted to the likelihood of acquisition for purposes which are not the same as that mentioned in s. 48 notification and that only part of the land was stated to be affected. He did not cite any authority in support of his argument. I do not think he can find any, because the plain words of s. 60(1) do not permit such an interpretation. The relevant part of s. 60(1) says that "the Court shall take into consideration (a) the market value at the date of the publication of the notification under s. 47 or, if no such notification has been published, the market value at the date of the posting of the declaration made under s. 48." In this case there was s. 47 notification, clearly it cannot argue otherwise that the year 1990, the date of the s. 47 notification, should be taken in s. 60(1).

We agree with the reasoning of the learned judge. Further, as pointed by the learned judge that assuming the s. 47 notification was not valid then the 1974 notification should be taken to be the valid and effective notification because there was no application to set it aside or have it declared null and void. If that is the case, then the market value of the subject property should be the valuation as on 7 November 1974; which would not benefit the appellant at all. In holding that the 1990 notification to be valid, the learned judge was giving the benefit to the appellant in taking that date to be the market value of the subject property. We see no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.

Another issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned judge failed to consider the award of RM32,376 per acre awarded by the Superintendent to the applicant in respect of the acquisition on Lot 860 Block 4 Sentah-Segu Land District notification. That piece of land which was part of Lot 545, Bl