Back
2011 MarsdenLR 2200
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
CALAMAS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH BATANG PADANG – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01-3-2008(A)]
Land must be valued according to its zoning use as indicated by local planning regulations, with the valuation process regulated strictly by statutory guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Sections 8, 9A, 40D, and 51(1)(b) - Land acquisition compensation dispute - Compensation of RM537,504.00 for 3.744 acres, awarded and increased to RM904,174.92 by High Court - Appellant argued for valuation based on approved subdivision for housing development, claiming High Court ignored legal provisions - The court emphasized that lands must be valued based on zoning use according to the statutory guidelines - The appellant's appeal dismissed on grounds of non-appealability of compensation award under s 40D(3). (Paras 2, 6, 19, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant’s land was partially acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation awarded was contested, leading to a successful appeal resulting in revised compensation reflecting zoning for housing development purposes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was a compelling need for valuation based on local planning regulations and dismissed the appeal due to prohibitive statutory provisions against appealing compensation figures.
Issues: Key issue was the adequacy of compensation for acquired land and whether the High Court’s considerations properly aligned with statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that laws stipulate that land assigned specific zoning must be valued accordingly at the time of acquisition, dismissing contrary claims about valuation potential.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding land acquisition and compensation. (Para 2) |
| 2. inadequacy of quantum and non-compliance with legal provisions. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. interpretation of land acquisition act provisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. finality of the court's decisions and no further appeal. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. discretion regarding costs in court decisions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed the appellant's appeal against the High Court decision given on 14 February 2004. We reserved our judgment after hearing this appeal to be given at a later date. We do so now.
Facts
[2] The brief facts in this appeal as found in the grounds of judgment of the Court of Appeal (pp 13-14 appeal record Jilid 1) are as follows:-
A portion of the Appellant's land ie, 3.744 acres held under title No HS(D) 196, PT No 2355 Mukim Ulu Bernam Timur district of Batang Padang, Perak ("the scheduled land") was acquired. The said acquisition was made pursuant to s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and gazetted on 6 July 2000.
The scheduled land is a freehold land comprising 18.9768 acres and the land use is described and categorised as "agricultural".
On 28 October 2000 the Respondent awarded the Appellant compensation for the acquired portion of the scheduled land the sum of RM537,504.00 based on land valuation at the rate of RM352,000.00 per hectare or RM3.40 per square foot.
The Appellant was grieved by and objected to the amount of the compensation. They applied for reference to be made to the Ipoh High Court.
Before the Ipoh High Court, the learned judge sat with two assessors as required under s 40A (2) of the Act. The Appellant valuer gave evidence. The learned trial judge presided the land reference hearing with the two assessors and on 14.2.2004, the High Court delivered its decision in this manner:-
(a) In respect of the land acquired, the Court awarded the land value at RM5.50 per square foot, amounting to RM904,174.92, a significant increase over the last award of RM537,504.00.
(b) In respect of the return frontage advantage, the Court awarded RM20,000.00.
(c) In respect of the loss of the water tank and the tarmac road, this was disallowed.
(d) The Court awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1 August 2000 until date of payment of the compensation.
(e) The Court awarded costs to the private assessor - but made no order as to costs to the Appellant.
The Appellant aggrieved by the High Court decision on 14 February 2000 then lodged a Notice of Appeal dated 10 March 2004.
[3] The main issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant is the inadequacy of quantum. In his written submission, he submitted inter alia that "Firstly it is undisputed evidence that the appellant intended to sub-divide the scheduled land into homestead lots. In the valuation report of the respondent it is acknowledged that the State director of Town and Country Planning had informed the Land Administration that an application for sub-division of the scheduled land had been made. The Director of Town and Country Planning also stated that the application for sub-division has been approved in principle. The appellant had given evidence that the issue of sub-divided titles was held up by virtue of the present acquisition exercise. The intended sub-divided lots as homestead lots were facing the main Behrang Station - Ulu Behrang Road with water, electricity and telephone lines ready for connection. Therefore, the scheduled land should have been valued by making comparison with homestead lands by applying s 1 para 1A and s 2 of the First Schedule to the Act (see pp 10, 12-13 of ABA). However, the High Court ignored this provision and thereby committed an error in law. The appellant had given evidence of homestead lots found at Lembah Beringin which were valued at RM10 per square foot. These Lembah Beringin homestead lots were categorised under agricultur
