The court upheld that judicial review of compensation determinations requires demonstration of irrationality, not merely dissatisfaction with awarded amounts.

[1] The applicant Salak Land Development Sdn Bhd ("the appellant") had applied for the remedies, inter alia, of certiorari, mandamus, declarations and injunctions under judicial review under O 53 r 3(2) of the Rules of the High 1980 in respect of the decision of the 2nd respondent Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Selangor ("the 2nd respondent") made on 14 July 2011, awarding the appellant compensation in the sum of RM2,931,937.50 and dismissing "tuntutan pampasan bagi tanah sterile, tanah terasing dan zon penampan" under an appeal by the appellant pursuant to s 16(2) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") against the decision of the 1st respondent Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Langat ("the 1st respondent") under s 16(1).

Background

[2] The 3rd respondent, Tenaga Nasional Berhad ("the 3rd respondent") had issued a "Notis Kemasukan" (First Schedule Notice) dated 22 August 2008 under s 11(2) of the 1990 Act to the appellant, the registered owner of a land held under Hakmilik HS(D) 5289, Lot No PT 8959, Mukim Tanjung Dua Belas, Daerah Kuala Langat, Selangor Darul Ehsan, to acquire a three chain wide right of way over a part of the land to construct a 275kV Loop In Loop Out Transmission Line from Olak Lempit Hicom to Bukit Baja Main Intake Substation.

[3] Pursuant to s 11(4) of the 1990 Act, the appellant by letter dated 15 September 2008, objected to the alignment proposed by TNB in the said First Schedule Notice dated 22 August 2008 and made a proposal for the realignment of the same by offering an alternative route over the said land.

[4] The 1st respondent conducted an inquiry under s 11(7) of the 1990 Act on 4 December 2008. It made a Second Schedule order wherein the appellant's objection to the 3rd respondent's alignment and the appellant's realignment proposal was dismissed.

[5] The appellant appealed to the 2nd respondent and by letters dated 6 May 2009 and 5 August 2009, the parties were informed that the 2nd respondent had allowed the appellant's appeal and that the 3rd respondent was to realign its rentice in accordance to the route proposed by the appellant. Pursuant to an inquiry on 8 September 2010, under s 16(1) of the 1990 Act, the 1st respondent ordered the 3rd respondent to pay compensation in the sum of RM1,465,968.707. The appellant appealed to the 2nd respondent against the 1st respondent's award. The 2nd respondent varied the award by increasing it to RM2,931,937.50. The appellant's application for judicial review of the decision by the 2nd respondent was dismissed by the High Court on 17 February 2012.

Submissions For The Appellant

[6] The appellant's complaint was directed at the assessment process employed by the 2nd respondent. It was submitted that it was flawed, failed to take into account relevant factors, and wholly unreasonable. It was submitted that the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review in that it failed to appreciate that the 2nd respondent failed to take into consideration relevant factors and misconstrued the applicable sections of the 1990 Act.

[7] Shorn of the redundant language, the point made was:

[8] The reference by the appellant to Land Acquisition Act arose from Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Tekali Prospecting Sdn Bhd , [2002] 2 MLJ 707 where the Court of Appeal addressed s 11 of the 1990 Act. The submission proceeded to art 13 of the Federal Constitution, the book Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Guru Prasanna Singh, 11th edn, 2008 at p 133, and came back to that:

[9] The submission went back to:

[10] The submission for the ap