Back
2025 MarsdenLR 695
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG; NG TANN NA & ORS (INTEVENERS) & OTHER.... – Respondent
[Land Reference Nos: BA-15-153-12/2023 BA-15-34-08/2023 BA-15-35-08/2023 BA-15-36-08/2023 BA-15-37-08/2023 BA-15-38-08/2023 BA-15-39-09/2023 BA-15-45-09/2023 BA-15-46-09/2023 BA-15-47-09/2023 BA-15-48-09/2023 BA-15-56-09/2023 & BA-15-57-09/2023]
The court upheld the compensation for land acquisition, emphasizing the adherence to market value principles and relevant laws, rejecting claims for structures not compliant with land regulations.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Compulsory acquisition - Compensation for acquisition of land - Appeal by West Coast Expressway to reduce compensation awarded to RM16,484,809.00 - The relevant principles for assessing market value, severance, and related costs were assessed and applied - The court upheld the Land Administrator's award, rejecting claims for buildings not permitted under the National Land Code - No findings of procedural error were established. (Paras 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 39, 41, 46, 52)
(B) Compensation principles - Market value should be assessed in accordance with the land's intended use and surrounding market conditions - Both the burden of proof and the assessment of comparables lay predominantly with the requesting party. (Paras 17, 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
This judgment concerns a land acquisition for the construction of a highway, where the Land Administrator had awarded compensation to various landowners and interested parties. The highway concessionaire contested the awarded amounts, claiming they were excessive and sought a reduction based on alleged market values and appropriateness of ancillary costs. (Paras 3-21)
Findings of Court:
The compensation for market value was maintained at RM830.00 per square meter, and additional claims for structures were not awarded due to non-compliance with land use regulations. The amounts for severance and land development costs were upheld. (Paras 22, 39-52)
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded was adequate based on market value, validity of claims for structures, and procedural compliance under the Land Acquisition Act. (Paras 5, 16, 42)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that land should be valued based on comparable evidence, with compensation for severance appropriately awarded due to the loss of usable land value; claims not adhering to legal usage were disallowed. (Paras 44, 46)
Result: The appeals were dismissed, and the awards of the Land Administrator were maintained.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compulsory acquisition case introduction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts about land acquisition process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. validation of compensation legal framework. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. provision of the land acquisition act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. procedural guidance on land acquisition. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. role of assessors in compensation cases. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. comparison of compensation valuations. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. market value determination principles. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. assessment methods for property valuation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 10. market value determination methods. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 11. common comparables in land valuation. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 12. considerations for appraising market value. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 13. analysis of agricultural land use regulations. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 14. final valuation adjustments made. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 15. assessment of structures on scheduled land. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 16. building restrictions under the national land code. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 17. ruling on severance compensation. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 18. incidental cost assessments in compensation. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 19. final decisions on land development costs. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 20. conclusion on compensation awards. (Para 53) |
Introduction
[1] This is a land reference matter arising from the compulsory acquisition of a portion of a landed property for the construction of a phase of the West Coast Expressway.
[2] At the hearing, this court, with the assistance of two assessors, made certain orders to the compensation awarded by the Land Administrator. This is the judgment for the reasons of this court in coming to that decision.
Factual Background
[3] The facts are garnered from documents filed in court with modifications.
[4] 13 land references involving a piece of land held under GRN20088 Lot 10478, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang ("Scheduled Land") were consolidated by an Order dated 6 May 2024. The land references are:
(a) Land Reference No BA-15-153-12/2023 ("LR 153") by West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd ("WCESB"), the highway concessionaire and paymaster of compulsory acquisition costs for the 233-km West Coast Expressway (E32).
(b) 12 land references by persons interested of the Scheduled Land ie, building owners ("Persons Interested") -BA-15-34-08/2023 ("LR 34"), BA-15-35-08/2023 ("LR 35"), BA-15-36-08/2023 ("LR36"), BA-1537-09/2023 ("LR 37"), BA-15-38-09/2023 ("LR 38"), BA-15-39-09/2023("LR 39"), BA-15-45-09/2023 ("LR 45"), BA-15-46-09/2023 ("LR 46"), BA-15-47-09/2023 ("LR 47"), BA-15-48-09/2023 ("LR 48"), BA-15-56-09/2023 ("LR56"), BA-15-57-09/2023 ("LR 57"). (collectively "Land References')
[5] The Land References concern partial acquisition of the Scheduled Land under para 3(1)(a), of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (" LAA ") for the public purpose of "Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping-Banting); Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan SAE - Persimpangan NKVE / FHR2), Daerah Klang, Selangor" ("Acquisition"). The Respondent ("PTD"), after holding enquiries, made awards of compensation to landowners and persons interested of the Scheduled Land, totalling the sum of RM16,484,809.004 ("PTD's Award").
[6] The PTD's Award comprises the following components:
(1) the market value of the Scheduled Land
(2) severance, and
(3) land development costs.
[7] The Amended Form N submitted by WCESB seeks a reduction in the PTD's Award and has raised objections to all categories of claims granted by the PTD. The Form N submitted by the Persons Interested are primarily seeking ancillary costs that were previously denied by the PTD.
The Legal Principles
[8] The right to property is guaranteed in art 13 of the Federal Constitution which reads:
"(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.
(2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation."
[9] The law and proceedings relating to land acquisition are governed by the LAA 1960. This is a special Act which provisio
