Abdul Malek Ahmad PCA:

The subject lands comprise 96.76 acres of the 205,831 acres of Lot 25459 and fifteen acres of the 27,6434 acres of Lot 56626 in the Mukim of Hulu Kinta in the District of Kinta in the state of Perak. The notification of the compulsory acquisition was gazetted on 21 January 1993 and the purpose was for the development of a housing and commercial centre.

Lot 56626 forms part of the appellant and is sited to the immediate east and south of the Jelapang-Chemor main road and the North South Highway near the Jelapang toll plaza. In respect of Lot 25459, it has been severed into two portions by the existing North-South Highway, that is the stretch between Ipoh to Changkat Jering, and forms part of the appellant.

After an enquiry, the respondent awarded the sum of RM3,701,565 as compensation for Lot 25459 and RM1,249,558.80 for Lot 56626 as contained in Form G dated 19 May 1993. In effect, the appellant was awarded RM90,000 per hectare for Lot 25459 and RM215,000 per hectare for Lot 56626. Dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant subsequently filed its objection under s. 38(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (hereafter "the Act"). The grounds of its objection, as stated in Form H, was in relation to the measurements of the subject lands. The appellant further contended that the amount of compensation did not reflect the market value of the subject lands.

The appellant applied to increase the amounts awarded and on 12 December 1995, the learned High Court Judge ordered that the award on Lot 56626 be maintained and that the award for Lot 25459 be increased from RM90,000 to RM100,000 per hectare, that there was no serious severance and that interest at 8 per cent be paid if the increased award was not paid within three months after the service of the order. There was no order as to costs and the deposit was refunded.

Being dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant appealed. At the outset, both learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior federal counsel for the respondent informed the court that they intended to enter a consent judgment that this case be remitted to High Court for a retrial either before the same or before a different High Court Judge. As stated by learned counsel for the appellant, this was because the parties felt further evidence needed to be adduced on the question of severance and additional compensation could be likely. We took a short adjournment to discuss the matter and after due deliberation, we rejected the application to enter consent judgment and asked the parties to proceed if they were ready to do so.

Learned counsel for the appellant started off by saying that the question of severance stood unrebutted and the High Court decision should be revised or additional compensation of RM118,000 per hectare be allowed as Lot D had been worthless and the whole lot sterile.

The learned senior federal counsel, speaking from the Bar table, read out a summary of his outline submissions. The surprise came in the form of the objection on the severance issue, citing Bertam Consolidated Rubber Co Ltd v. Collector of Land Revenue Province Wellesley [1984] 1 CLJ 69; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 78 for support as this was after having agreed initially with learned counsel for the appellant that the matter should be remitted back to the High Court before the same or different High Court Judge to award additional compensation for severance.

The swift retort from learned counsel for the appellant was that the statement was not from the Bar and that new reports had arrived the previous Friday which the appellant applied to put in. He added that the learned senior federal counsel conceded to the fact that the Perak State Government had not done anything since. The learned senior federal counsel confirmed that but said that he did not agree to the tendering of the new reports. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that interest at 8 per cent was due on delayed payment as the r