Back
2025 MarsdenLR 673
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMAD SHAHMIR AH SHAARI – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent
[Land Reference No: WA-15-9-03/2022]
The comparison method provides the most reliable valuation for land compensation while speculative methods fail to adequately reflect market value, ensuring fair compensation under statutory guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Section 8, Section 37, Section 38 and Section 49(1) - Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land - Dispute over compensation amount awarded for a low-cost apartment unit - Government valuer's comparative method deemed appropriate compared to applicant's speculative residual method - Award of RM244,460 declared adequate reflecting true market value supported by three testimonies regarding market value - Land Administrator's procedures found compliant. (Paras 1, 9, 12, 43, 44)
(B) Market Valuation - The Comparison Method is preferred in assessing market value under land acquisition cases, reflecting recent transactions of similar properties - Residual Method is deemed speculative and inappropriate for individual strata units. (Paras 27, 28, 31)
Facts of the case:
The land acquisition dispute originated from the compulsory acquisition of a low-cost flat unit located at Lot 2195, Kuala Lumpur, with the applicant contending the awarded compensation of RM244,460 did not reflect the market value, claiming RM656,940 based on an independent valuation. (Paras 1, 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Land Administrator's compensation appropriately reflected the market value, dismissing speculative claims related to redevelopment potential as unsupported. (Paras 43, 44)
Issues: The central issue focused on the adequacy of the compensation awarded compared to market value based on the differing valuation methodologies adopted by respective parties. (Para 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Comparison Method accurately reflected the property's market value, whereas the speculative elements of the applicant's valuation undermined its credibility, resulting in the maintenance of the awarded compensation. (Paras 43, 44)
Result: Award upheld, confirming the compensation determined by the Land Administrator.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land acquisition details and compensation valuation. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. dispute over compensation adequacy and methods. (Para 3 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. procedural compliance under land acquisition act. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. burden of proof in compensation disputes. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court assisted by assessors for valuation. (Para 16) |
| 6. valuation approach by government assessor. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. private assessor's valuation and objections. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. consensus on valuation methods by assessors. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 9. legitimacy of comparison method for valuation. (Para 27 , 28 , 30) |
| 10. assessment of ancillary claims for expenses. (Para 36) |
| 11. principle of equivalence in compensation. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 12. evaluation of redevelopment potential. (Para 41) |
| 13. conclusion on fair market value assessment. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 14. final orders based on court's findings. (Para 45) |
Introduction
[1] This land acquisition reference arises from the compulsory acquisition of a low-cost flat unit located at Lot 2195, s 41 PN 30711/M 1/3/28, situated in Kuala Lumpur ("Scheduled Land"). The acquisition was for the purpose of the Kampung Sungai Baru redevelopment project generally known as "Projek Pembangunan Semula Kampung Sungai Baru Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur". This acquisition was made pursuant to a declaration under s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (" LAA 1960") vide Gazette Notification No 9412 dated 21 June 2021.
[2] Pursuant to an enquiry, the Land Administrator made an award of RM244,460.00 in compensation pursuant to Form G dated 15 November 2021.
[3] The applicant was not satisfied with the quantum of the award contending that the compensation does not reflect the true market value of the Scheduled Land. The applicant relied on a significantly higher independent valuation that assessed the Scheduled Land at RM656,940.00.
Brief Facts
[4] The Scheduled Land is a low-cost apartment unit with a built- up area of 41 square metres. It is held under a 99-year leasehold tenure with a remaining lease period of 57 years expiring on 12 April 2078 and designated under the land use category "Bangunan Kos Rendah".
[5] The Scheduled Land is located within the Kampung Sungai Baru redevelopment area. Its location, tenure and specific use as a low-cost apartment were central to the valuation exercise undertaken by the Land Administrator and the subsequent dispute regarding compensation.
[6] The Land Administrator adopted the comparison method of valuation relying on recent transactions of comparable properties within the vicinity. The compensation awarded by the Land Administrator comprised several elements, namely RM207,460.00 for the market value of the property, RM20,000.00 for renovation costs, RM12,000.00 for temporary rental and deposit expenses, and RM5,000.00 for moving costs. The Land Administrator assessed the total compensation at RM244,460.00.
[7] Conversely, the applicant's valuer employed multiple valuation methods, including the residual method, to account for the redevelopment potential of the property under the "Pelan Induk Kampung Baru" ("PIKB"). This led to the significantly higher valuation of RM656,940.00.
[8] Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the applicant sought an independent valuation which assessed the property's value at RM14.131.60 per square metre translating to RM660,640.00. Conversely, the Government Valuer assessed the property at RM4,400.00 per square metre, arriving at a total valuation of RM205,000.00.
Analysis And Findings
[9] The dispute revolves around the competing methodologies employed by the parties' respective valuers. The Government's valuer prioritized the comparison method while the private valuer relied heavily on speculative redevelopment potential under the PIKB.
[10] The primary issue for determination is whether the compensation awarded adequately reflects the market value of the Scheduled Land and whether the valuat
