Abdul Malek Ahmad PCA:

The subject property comprises three contiguous lots namely Lots 143, 144 and 146 Mukim Bandar Kuala Lumpur of limited commercial land with a total area of about 29,921.6 square feet with direct frontage onto Jalan Ampang about one hundred metres west of the junction at Jalan P. Ramlee and Jalan Yap Kwan Seng. The compulsory acquisition was gazetted on 10 May 1990 for the purpose of the renovation and extension of the Bank Simpanan Nasional headquarters. The subject property is located in the Golden Triangle where skyscrapers abound either as condominiums, offices, hotels or banks.

Although the appellant contended that the market value was RM480 per square foot, the respondent only awarded RM300 per square foot. The High Court increased the award to RM350 per square foot on 3 May 1996. Hence this appeal.

The appellant had four comparables while the respondent had seven. The learned High Court Judge found that only two of the appellant's four comparables and only one of the respondent's seven comparables could be considered as the others were not appropriate.

In his outline submissions, learned counsel for the appellant referred to two of his four comparables which were along Jalan Ampang. These were the two comparables considered by the learned High Court Judge. The first was Lots 43, 44, 45 and 46 of s. 44 which was sold for RM420.75 per square foot on 6 July 1990 and the second was Lots 43, 44, 133 and 135 of s. 58 sold for RM380 per square foot on 20 March 1990, according to the private valuer, but 3 November 1989 according to the government valuer. The latter was the common comparable.

Learned counsel submitted that the trial High Court Judge erred when he allowed only five per cent over the price of RM380 per square foot in favour of the subject property for increase in value for the time factor, using the sale dates for the two comparables in computing the monthly rate of increase, in view of the difference in the sale date of the second comparable between the two valuers. We found this difference to be of no consequence as it was only four months apart.

Employing the method of dividing the differences in price by the number of months between the sale dates, the rate of increase per month would be RM5 per month, the result of RM40 divided by eight months. Given that the difference in time between the sale date of the second comparable and the acquisition date is slightly more than six months, the figure in favour of the subject property would be RM30 per month over the RM350 for the second comparable making it closer to ten per cent than five per cent.

Learned counsel also pointed out that the learned High Court Judge accepted that a smaller land attracts a higher value than a larger land relying on Ng Tiou Hong v. Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak [1984] 1 CLJ 289 (Rep); [1984] 1 CLJ 350; [1984] 2 MLJ 35 where this court held that the big area of the land, its location and nature do not render it marketable as would the smaller lots in the neighbourhood.

The manner the learned High Court Judge assessed the comparables was strongly attacked by learned counsel for the appellant. Considering that the subject property was only 29,921.6 square feet compared to the first comparable's 101,004.75 square feet and the second comparable's 142,114.5 square feet, learned counsel argued that the learned High Court Judge arbitrarily arrived at the figure of five per cent for size in favour of the subject property when comparing it with the second comparable when the percentage ought to be higher, in fact as high as twenty per cent. He reiterated that the learned High Court Judge ought to have first ascertained the adjustment for size with regard to the first comparable in relation to the second comparable.

He grounded his submissions as regards the higher percentage from the observations made by the learned High Court Judge in his judgment and from the information available in the record of appeal in pa