Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5259
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ROZEL CORPORATION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent
[Land Reference No: WA-15-18-08/2022]
The court held that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate inadequacy in compensation awarded by the respondent, which was upheld as reasonable under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Section 2(d) and Section 37 - Compensation for compulsory land acquisition - The Respondent awarded RM1,260,522.78, which the Applicant contested - The Court maintained the Respondent's award, finding that the Applicant failed to prove a higher claim on the balance of probabilities - Considerations include potential business losses and the need for safety measures, which the Court found were adequately addressed by the Respondent's assessment. (Paras 7, 19, 22, 24)
(B) Procedural impropriety and irrationality - A claim by the Applicant that the acquisition was for a third party’s benefit was not substantiated in light of the responsibilities imposed on the Respondent under the Land Acquisition Act. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from the compulsory acquisition of part of the Applicant's land for a road widening project. The Applicant's contention was primarily that the Respondent did not award sufficient compensation for the loss of use and safety considerations following the acquisition. (Paras 5, 7, 12)
Findings of Court:
The Respondent's compensation was upheld, with the court finding that the valuation and considerations undertaken were reasonable and met statutory requirements; no procedural impropriety existed relating to the award. (Paras 22, 23, 24)
Issues: Main issues included the adequacy of compensation for various claims raised by the Applicant and whether procedural impropriety existed during the valuation process. (Paras 12, 18, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the onus was on the Applicant to demonstrate the inadequacy of the Respondent's valuation and failed to meet that burden, confirming the Respondent's assessment as both adequate and consistent with statutory guidelines. (Paras 20, 22)
Result: The Respondent's award is maintained; claims for increased compensation and procedural improvements dismissed. (Paras 23, 24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the tenancy and land acquisition agreement (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's analysis of valuation reports and assessments (Para 10 , 15 , 19) |
| 3. applicant's grounds of objection to the compensation awarded (Para 12) |
| 4. court's reasoning regarding procedural improprieties and compensation responsibilities (Para 18 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final decision and order concerning compensation and costs (Para 23 , 24) |
[1] By a Tenancy Agreement dated 7 December 1999 between Asia Life (M) Berhad and JKL Furnishing Sdn Bhd., the former as the registered and beneficial owner of the land identified as Lot No PT 237, H.S.(D) 98215, s 88A, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur ('Land') with a detached building thereon bearing postal address No. 240-1, Jalan Ampang, 50250 Kuala Lumpur ('Subject Property'), had agreed to rent the Subject Property to the latter at a monthly rental of RM8,000.00 from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001.
[2] JKL Furnishing Sdn Bhd then changed its name to Rozel Corporation Sdn Bhd ('Applicant') and Asia Life (M) Berhad later came to be known as Tokio Marine Life Insurance Malaysia Bhd.
[3] The tenancy continued with the relevant Tenancy Agreement for present purposes being the Tenancy Agreement dated 4 March 2021 between Tokio Marine Life Insurance Malaysia Bhd and the Applicant wherein the Applicant exercised the option to renew the tenancy of the Subject Property from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023 at a monthly rental rate of RM23,284.80 for the 1st year. RM23,750.50 for the 2nd year and RM24,225.51 for the 3rd year.
[4] The Applicant has been using the double storey building on the Land as its furniture showroom.
[5] The land area is 7,858.600 square metres (sqm) and part of the same ie 387.088 sqm was compulsorily acquired for Projek Pelebaran Jalan Awam sedia ada di Jalan Ampang, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur vide Federal Government Gazette No 897 dated 14 January 2022 ('Said Acquisition'). The remaining land area is 7,471.512 sqm.
[6] The party who applied for the land acquisition was Pedoman Ikhtisas Sdn Bhd ('PISB'). PISB is the developer of a project known as Pavillion Embassy which comprises of luxury residences, services suites and corporate suites.
[7] The Respondent conducted an enquiry pursuant to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486] (' LAA I960') in order to ascertain the amount of compensation to be paid to the Applicant for the Said Acquisition. At the end of the enquiry, the Respondent made an award of compensation for the Applicant in the total sum of RM1,260,522.78.
[8] The Applicant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent's award, then filed an objection under s 37 LAA 1960 in Form N dated 15 July 2022 requiring the Respondent to refer the matter to the Court for determination as provided under subsection 38(1) of the 1960. The Applicant's objection was duly referred to the Court vide the Respondent's Form O dated 3 August 2022, which was filed on 16 August 2022.
[9] This matter first came before me for hearing on 21 October 2024 as there was no Judge in this Court following the retirement of my predecessor. Upon the request by the parties, the hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to discuss an amicable settlement. However, this did not come to fruition and the hearing proceeded on 20 January 2025 with the Applicant being given time to file brief supplemental submission on the issue of alleged procedural impropriety, and reply submission by the Respondent, if any.
[10] Having read the written submissions by the learned counsels for the Applicant and the Respondent, the Valuation Reports prepared by Jabatan Penilaian Dan Perkhidmatan Harta ('JPPH') as the Government Valuer ('GV') and KGC International Property Consultants (M) Sdn Bhd as the Private Valuer ('PV'); the Opinions by the Government Assessor ('GA') and Private Assessor ('PA'); and the Bundle of Documents as per encl 4, on 7 March 202
