The determination of compensation must consider evidence of market value and avoid procedural unfairness in assessment.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court on a land reference from the Land Administrator, Johor Bahru under s 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ( LAA 1960). The appellant's land in question measured 4,464 square metre in area.

[2] Following the compulsory acquisition of the appellant's land by the State Authority in 2017, the Land Administrator (LA) awarded the appellant compensation in the sum of RM16,516,800.00 at the rate of RM3,700.00 per square metre.

[3] Dissatisfied with the LA's award, the appellant filed an application in Form N to the LA requiring the LA to refer the matter to the High Court pursuant to s 38(1) of the LAA 1960.

[4] On 9 August 2018, the High Court, assisted by assessors, ordered that the compensation be adjusted from RM16,516,800.00 to RM19,026,907.00 as the fair market value to be compensated to the appellant for the acquired land. The appellant being dissatisfied with the High Court's decision has appealed to the Court of Appeal. After hearing of oral submissions of counsel and having perused the written submissions and appeal record, we allowed the appeal with costs. We now set out the reasons for our decision.

Appellant's Submission

[5] Before addressing us on the grounds of the appeal, learned counsel addressed the preliminary issue relating to whether the appeal is limited to issues of fact on ground of quantum of compensation. He submitted that this appeal is premised on the ground that there was no evidence on which the High Court properly directing itself could reach that conclusion of fact. As such, that decision may itself for that reason be wrong in point of law and thus susceptible to an appeal ( Ashbridge Investments Ltd v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 WLR 1320; Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow [1956] AC 14; Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Another Case, [2017] 3 MLJ 561 (FC)).

[6] Learned counsel for the appellant argued that that there was no evidence to support the learned judge's decision. His argument is premised on three main points.

1st Point - 10% Deduction To The Market Value