[1] The background facts, which are not in dispute, are briefly as follows. The declaration of intended acquisition of the scheduled land was published in the Government Gazette of the State of Pulau Pinang dated 24 September 1992. The declared purpose of the acquisition is "Tujuan Awam". The land is held under Lot NO 2020, MK6, Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, comprising an area of 137.41163 hectares ("the scheduled land"). The area to be acquired is 130.122 hectares. The scheduled land is an agricultural holding under oil palm cultivation located in Pongsu Seribu which is essentially an agricultural area, with a variety of holdings ranging from large estates to small holding. The main cultivation being oil palm and rubber. Other forms of development in or near the vicinity of the scheduled land include housing schemes, Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Ugama Al-Irshad, and Jabatan Perkhidmatan Haiwan. In terms of location, it is about 4.8 km in distance from both Kepala Batas and Tasek Gelugor and 18.5 km from Butterworth town. The scheduled land is a second layer land fronting an unsurfaced road, which joins Jalan Pongsu Seribu. Basic amenities like water supply, electric supply and public transport are available in the vicinity of the scheduled land. After an enquiry the District Land Administrator awarded the sum of RM9,108,890 (equivalent to RM28,327 per acre) as compensation for the scheduled land. This is contained in Form G dated 16 November 1992 at p 19 of the Appeal Record. The appellant was dissatisfied with the said award and filed its objection under s 38(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("the Act"). The objection came for hearing before Mokhtar JCA, sitting as a High Court Judge in Penang. The learned judge increased the award to RM35,000 per acre, an increase of RM6,673 per acre from the award of the District Land Administrator. The appellant is still dissatisfied with the said award of the learned judge and hence this appeal.Before us, it is contended that the compensation should have been increased to at least RM48,000 per acre based on appellant's valuer's comparable NO 8, which is the award made by District Land Administrator for the same land on 13 February 1992, some seven months prior to the present acquisition. It is further contended that the learned judge in making the award failed to give sufficient weight to the comparables relied upon by the appellant's valuer. For those reasons the appellant maintained that the award by the learned judge of RM35,000 is erroneous as the compensation sum is well below the true market value of the scheduled land. In determining market value, our courts as a matter of course have adopted the comparable method of valuation of land where there is ample evidence of sales or awards involving similar lands. What this method entails was succinctly explained by the Federal Court in Ng Tiou Hong v. Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak [1984] 1 MLRA 196, [1984] 2 MLJ 35 where at pp 37-38; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 289 in the following words: First, market value means the compensation that must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The elements of unwillingness or sentimental value on the part of the vendor to part with the land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy have to be disregarded and cannot be made a basis for increasing the market value. It must be treated on the willingness of both the vendor to sell and the purchaser to buy at the market price without any element of compulsion. Secondly, the market price can be measured by a consideration of the prices of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood or locality and of similar quality and positions. Thirdly, its potentialities must be taken into account. The nature of the land and the use to which it is being put at the time of acquisition have to be taken into account together with the likelihood to which it is