(delivering the judgment of the Court): Lot 412, Certificate of Title No. 13287, Town of Kuala Lumpur, is a large piece of land of approximately 1.994 acres in Kampong Bahru, upon which stood a large two-storey house No. 175, Jalan Raja Muda.

To change the course of the Sungai Benus which passed through Kampong Bahru, Government acquired part of it under the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 ("the Act"). Government acquired an area of 15,540 square feet, which has accordingly been excised; and a further area of 4,005 square feet not acquired was severed from the rest of the land. As a result of river deviation work done on behalf of Government after the acquisition, the house was badly damaged and required extensive repair.

The Collector of Land Revenue heard the owner's claim on October 29, 1969, and on January 24, 1970, and in his award dated January 30, 1970, awarded compensation as follows:

(a) a sum of $54,390 for the 15,540 square feet acquired at $3.50 per square foot; and

(b) a sum of $900 as disturbance money.

No award was made in respect of the damage to the house. It is round this that controversy now centres.

The landowner was dissatisfied with the award and at her request the matter was referred under section 38 of the Act to the High Court; and on November 3, 1979, Vohrah J. confirmed awards (a) and (b); and further awarded

(c) $8,010 as compensation for damage sustained by reason of the severance of $4,005 sq. ft. from the rest of the land; and

(d) $40,185 compensation for the damage to the house.

The Collector accepted all the learned judge's awards, except award (d) which says that Government must pay compensation for the damage done to the house.

There is no dispute regarding market value of the land acquired, and none regarding the damage payable in respect of severance. The dispute now is regarding the compensation awarded in respect of the damage done by Government subsequent to the acquisition to the house which was never acquired and still belongs to the owner.

The Government contends that this compensation, if payable, should have been the subject of a separate suit. The owner contends (and the learned judge agreed) that it need not have been the subject of a separate suit and that it can be considered and awarded in the course of a reference under the Act.

The authority for holding that compensation is payable for the damage to the house is paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Act which provides:

"In determining the amount of compensation the court must take into consideration [among other things] the damage, if any, sustained or likely to be sustained by the person interested [i.e. the owner] at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, whether movable or immovable, in any other manner or his actual earnings."

Thus the point before us is a short and simple one: must damages for injurious affection to the house under paragraph 2(d) be sued for separately or may they be claimed and awarded in the course of the reference under the Act? This point has never been decided by the courts before.

The point is not merely of academic interest.

No claim was made at the enquiry before the Collector. It would appear that if it had been made, the Collector could, because of the words "likely to be sustained", award compensation for the damage done to the house.

In Collector of Dinagepore v Girja Nath Roy & Ors ILR 25 Cal 346 a piece of land belonging to the Maharajah of Dinagepore was acquired for the construction of a bridge; a bridge was constructed upon it and opened for traffic; and the Maharajah claimed compensation for the loss of his income derived from his ferry which was worked within a short distance of the spot on which the bridge had been constructed and within the limits of his estate. He relied on clause 4 of subsection (1) of section 23 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act which was almost like our pa