Back
2021 MarsdenLR 2069
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR – Appellant
Versus
NUSANTARA DAYA SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-24-08-2019(J)]
The Federal Court ruled that disagreements over compensation calculations do not constitute questions of law for appeal under section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Section 49 – Proviso to section 49(1) – Appeal regarding compensation awarded by the High Court – The Federal Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision to allow the appeal was in error due to misunderstanding the scope of questions allowable under the proviso. The High Court’s adjustments to market value and deductions based on actual evidence were deemed valid. (Paras 14, 32, 41, 106, 111)
Facts of the case: The respondent was dissatisfied with compensation awarded for land acquisition and appealed on grounds considered questions of law; however, the dispute fundamentally related to the amount awarded and adjustments made.
Findings of Court: The accusations against the High Court’s methodology were determined to be complaints about compensation, affirming the High Court’s calculation process and authority.
Issues: Whether appeal is barred under section 49(1) regarding compensation amounts; whether questions raised were true questions of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The Federal Court clarified that the mere discontent with compensation adjustments does not render them questions of law; therefore, the appeal was disallowed.
Result: The appeal was allowed, restoring the High Court's decision.
[1] This appeal brings to sharp focus, once again, the meaning, intent and ambit of s 49 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486), in particular the proviso to s 49(1), whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal and thence to this Court, is barred by reason of the proviso. This issue was raised as a threshold issue at the Court of Appeal which went on to rule in the negative before deciding the appeal on its merits. This threshold issue forms the core issue in this appeal.
Facts
[2] The salient facts are gathered from the respective grounds of judgment of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
[3] According to the High Court, the respondent had invoked s 38(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486) after it found itself dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Administrator for the acquisition of its land known as Lot 46200 GRN 460222, Mukim Johor Bahru, Daerah Johor Bahru (scheduled land). The scheduled land measuring some 4,464 square metres in area was acquired for the purpose of "Pembinaan Loji Rawatan Air Kumbahan di Hulu Sungai Segget di Mukim Bandar Johor Bahru Daerah Johor Bahru untuk Jabatan Perdana Menteri di bawah perenggan 3(1)(a) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960".
[4] The Land Administrator had awarded a sum of RM16,516,800.00 as compensation for the acquisition. The respondent claimed that the fair market value of the scheduled land was RM28,830,074.40, that is, a rate of RM6,458.35 per square metre. A private valuer's report was offered in support - see pp 84 to 121, record of appeal. The respondent had also claimed a loss of income of RM40,200.00 for loss of use of the scheduled land as a car park for 67 vehicles. In coming to his award, the Land Administrator had relied on the recommendations of the Government Valuer who had offered four comparable sales in his valuation of the scheduled land (see valuation report at pp 122 to 174, record of appeal). After making the necessary adjustments to account for differences between the scheduled land and the comparable sales, the Government Valuer had recommended a market value of RM3,700.00 per square metre. The Land Administrator rejected the respondent's claim for loss of income.
[5] On 9 August 2018, assisted by assessors, the High Court increased the amount of compensation from RM16,516,800.00 to RM19,026,907.00 after being satisfied that this represented the fair market value of the scheduled land. The respondent had relied on a valuation report prepared by a private valuer to justify its claim for increased compensation at the High Court. The private valuer had suggested four comparable sales in his valuation report. Each comparable was assessed and rejected by the High Court and the reasons for the rejection are set out at paras [6] to [23] of the grounds of decision.
[6] The appellant also offered four comparables through the Government valuer. The learned judge and the assessors agreed that the best comparable was Comparable No 1 but rejected Comparable Nos 2, 3 and 4. Reasons for this decision were also given - see paras [16] to [23]. After making adjustments, the High Court, as the Land Reference Court, increased the market value of the scheduled land to RM19,026,907.00, that is, a further amount of RM2,510,107.00 as compensation for the acquisition of the scheduled land together with interest. Those adjustments involved a total deduction of 30%: 5% for location, 10% for access, 5% for layer and 10% for size.
[7] The learned judge tabulated his reasons for the decision:
Factors to be considered Base value for comparison RM5,799.44 m2 Remarks Time + 5% The date of valuation for the scheduled land was later, therefore, an increase of 5% of the base value was allocated. This Court is of the considered view that an increase of 5% was justifiable since not many transactions were recorded within the period between 2016 and 2017. Adjusted value RM6,089.00 Other considerations:
Location -5% As explained above, the location of the s
