Abdul Malek Ahmad J:

[1] As correctly stated by the learned trial Judge in his grounds of judgment, the issue for determination is whether the petitioner, now the appellant, is a person interested in the scheduled land under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (herein after "the Act") and thereby may make an objection to the Collector and require him to refer to the Court as regards the amount of compensation which the appellant alleges is excessive.

[2] The registered proprietor of the scheduled land had applied to intervene and with no objection from the parties, had been named the second respondent. They had also cross-appealed for an order that the first respondent pay the remaining twenty five per cent of the award of RM19,735,280 namely RM4,933,820, not RM4,933,748 as stated in their cross-appeal, to them together with interest effective from the date the amount was due to be paid.

[3] The valuation report describes the scheduled land as a piece of land 232 hectares in area planted with oil palm and rubber trees situated 33 kilometres from Seremban, 20.5 kilometres from the proposed international airport at Sepang and 9 to 12 kilometres from Nilai town and Nilai Industrial Park. The valuation officer had valued the scheduled land at RM85,000 per acre.

[4] The appellant is a statutory body with power to undertake ventures of a commercial or industrial nature independently or jointly with another company. They had objected to the amount of the award which they said was excessive. The second respondent is also dissatisfied with the amount of compensation and their objection to the Collector's award is still pending.

[5] The term "person interested" has been defined in the Act as including every person claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act, but does not include a tenant by the month or at will. The learned trial Judge found no difficulty in deciding that the second respondent is a person interested and had allowed them to intervene. He had gone into some detail, by referring to ss 3 and 37 of the Act, as to whether the appellant is also a person interested and had concluded by allowing the second respondent's application to intervene and dismissing the appellant's objection to the Collector's award with costs.

[6] It is pertinent at this point to reproduce s 3 of the Act as it was before the amendment to paragraph (b) which became effective on 13 September 1991:

3. The State Authority may acquire any land which is needed:

(a) for any public purpose;

(b) by any person or corporation undertaking a work which in the opinion of the State Authority is of public utility; or

(c) for the purpose of mining or for residential, agricultural, commercial or industrial purposes.

[7] The amendment to paragraph (b) reads as follows:

(b) by any person or corporation for any purpose which in the opinion of the State Authority is beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the public generally or any class of the public; or

[8]Section 37(3) of the Act states:

37. (3) Where the total amount of any award in respect of any scheduled land exceeds fifteen thousand ringgit any Government or any person or corporation undertaking a work which in the opinion of the State Authority is of public utility, and on whose behalf such land was acquired pursuant to the provisions of s 3, shall be deemed to be a person interested in any scheduled land under the provisions of subsection (1), and may make objections on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1).

[9] Learned Counsel for the appellant was of the view that the words "any person or corporation undertaking a work which in the opinion of the State Authority is of public utility" in s 37(3) of the Act should be deleted as they are incompatible and irreconcilable with the amended s 3(b) of the Act as the result was that the ambit of s 37(3) of the Act had been greatly reduced.

[10] The explanatory statement to the bill fo