Grounds of Appeal:

1. The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in holding that acquisition comparables could be used as a suitable method of valuation for assessing market value under para 1(1A) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960, and further erred in preferring a sale comparable endorsed by both assessors without sufficient justification for rejecting other comparables. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

2. The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in holding that the misdescription of the acquired land's category of use (as "general" instead of "Bangunan/Perniagaan") did not vitiate the market value assessment, notwithstanding that such error affected the assessors' valuations and the judge's adoption of the adjusted value. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

3. The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in refusing compensation for injurious affection under para 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960 in respect of contiguous lots not compulsorily acquired, as the construction of the slip road did not adequately mitigate the loss of access via the acquired land and evidence showed diminution in value. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

4. The learned trial judge erred in law in holding that "taking possession of the land" under ss 32(1C) and 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 refers only to physical possession by the Land Administrator under s 18 or via Certificate of Urgency under s 19, thereby excluding pre-award entry and possession by the acquiring authority's contractor which effectively deprived the owner of possession. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)