A paymaster must lodge an official objection to acquire party status in land reference proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.

[1] These are four appeals filed by the appellant, Tenaga Nasional Berhad ("TNB") before this court originating from two land reference proceedings in the High court which were heard together The respondent in these four appeals is Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd ("Unggul Tangkas"). Unggul Tangkas was the registered owner of two pieces of land ("scheduled land") which were acquired for TNB pursuant to s 3(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('Act'). Unggul Tangkas was awarded RM12,593,196 ('award') as full compensation for its interest in the scheduled land, which was payable by TNB.

[2] Dissatisfied with the award, Unggul Tangkas filed an objection in Form N to the Land Administrator and initiated two land reference proceedings before the High court.

[3] TNB filed applications under O 15 r 6 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") for leave to intervene ("encl 7") in the land reference proceedings and to file the valuer's report and the relevant rebuttal reports.

[4] Unggul Tangkas contended that TNB failed to comply with the procedure for objection to the award as provided for under ss 37(3) and 38 of the Act and the applications to intervene were an abuse of the court process.

In The High court

[5] The High court allowed encl 7 and TNB was added as the intervener/second respondent in the land reference proceedings. Nonetheless, TNB was not allowed to file its valuation and rebuttal reports. The High court inter alia stated as follows:

(i) As a paymaster, the Proposed Intervener has both legal and commercial interests in the decision of this court on the land reference.

(ii) The Proposed Intervener has not filed any valuation report at the enquiry before the Land Administrator, thus the court agrees with the submissions of the Landowner's counsel that it will be unfair for the Proposed Intervener to now be allowed to file its valuation report. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Land Administrator's award was made based on the valuation reports before the Land Administrator

[6] Aggrieved by the decision, Unggul Tangkas filed two appeals to the court of Appeal against the order allowing TNB to intervene, whereas TNB lodged two appeals against the decision of the High court which refused to allow TNB to adduce the valuation and the rebuttal reports.

In The court Of Appeal

[7] The court of Appeal held that TNB should not be allowed to intervene and thus the issue of adducing the valuation and the rebuttal reports shall fail. The court of Appeal in its judgment, inter alia, observed as follows:

Section 45 of the LA Act 1960 says inter alia, it does not allow for a carte blanche importation of the Rules of 2012 in toto. It only allows for the Rules of 2012 to be applied in appropriate circumstances. It does not make the application of all provisions in the Rules of 2012 to be applicable to proceedings emanating from the LA Act 1960. Our construction of s 45 of the LA Act 1960 is that the Rules of 2012 is applicable as long as they do not run contrary to the provisions, in the context of the provisions of the LA Act 1960 itself. At the highest, its application to the LA Act 1960, if at all appropriate, it is complementary.

... TNB was not a party that was entirely alien to the proceedings before the LA. It was present and its