JUDGMENT

Azman Abdullah JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant/applicant against the decision of the High Court dated 3 August 2022 whereby the learned High Court Judge ("the learned HCJ") had dismissed the appellant's land reference for the acquisition of the land known as Lot 25900, Mukim Setapak, Kuala Lumpur ("scheduled land").

[2] At the High Court , the appellant seeks additional compensation for the market value of the house and supposed injurious affection owing to the loss of the building and numerous chattels erected on the said scheduled land. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court , hence this appeal.

[3] We heard the appeal on 30 May 2025 and we now give our decision. For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court . The Appellant will be referred to as the applicant and the respondent, Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur will be referred to as the Land Administrator.

Background Facts

[4] At all material times, it is not disputed that the building on the scheduled land was demolished in 2012 after severely affected by the collapse of a concrete embankment in Bukit Setiawangsa due to a landslide and it was 16 months before the acquisition was gazetted in 2014. Before the incident, the 967 sq m scheduled land area had a renovated double-storey detached house with a swimming pool on it. The demolition work was done by Dewan Bandar Raya Kuala Lumpur ("DBKL") and since then, the scheduled land was left barren/ vacant by the applicant.

[5] On 1 April 2014, the Land Administrator acquired the scheduled land under s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486] ("the Act") for the purpose of repairing and rehabilitating the condition of the hill slope (Projek Memperbaiki Runtuhan Cerun di Jalan Puncak Setiawangsa 2, Setiawangsa, Kuala Lumpur). Following enquiries on 14 May 2014 and 10 June 2014, the Land Administrator on 10 June 2014 awarded compensation for a sum of RM2,790,000.00 for the scheduled land with another RM100,000.00 awarded for the cost of moving and other miscellaneous costs, making the total award of RM2,890,000.00.

[6] Dissatisfied with the amount, the applicant accepted the award under protest and subsequently filed the requisite Form N on the grounds that he ought to have been compensated for the house and the contents therein that was erected/ stood on the said land before the occurrence of the landslide. The applicant also filed Form O to refer the matter to the Court claiming for the same additional compensation for the alleged loss of the building and the chattels.

[7] The land reference was first heard before the learned High Court Judge, Nordin Hassan J (as he then was) on 11 December 2017 where the applicant's objections were dismissed and it was ordered that the Land Administrator's award dated 10 June 2014 be maintained. This case went to appeal at the Court of Appeal in which the appeal was also dismissed. Dissatisfied, the applicant further appealed to the Federal Court . The Federal Court had allowed the appeal and ordered remittance back to the High Court for the reason that there has been non-compliance with s 40C of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. As s 40C is mandatory, the failure to comply with it requires that the matter be remitted for re-hearing before a Judge of the High Court .

[8] Upon the matter being re-heard by another learned HCJ, the applicant's claim was again dismissed and the Land Administrator's Award was upheld.

Decision of the High Court

[9] From the grounds of the learned HCJ, the essence of her decision was premised on the following:

(a) The applicant's Valuer, TD Aziz Sdn Bhd in its Valuation Report dated 29 April 2014 opined that the loss of the building is an injurious affection which ought to be compensated at the value of RM1,400,000.00. Nonetheless, the said Valuer did not expand further on any justification save for the lone fact that the building was demolished prior to the acquisition.