JUDGMENT

Leong Wai Hong J:

[Written Opinions Of Assessors To Be Made Available To Parties]

Issue

[1] The sole issue in this Judgment is whether the written opinions of the two assessors in a Land Reference under s 40D of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486] ("LAA") must be given to parties for counsel to submit on their contents before the High Court delivers its decision; or the written opinions need only be released to parties after the High Court delivers its decision for inclusion in the appeal records for an appeal [if any] to the Court of Appeal.

[2] Counsel for the applicant submits that a close reading of the recent Federal Court decision in Tegas Sejati Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Dan Daerah Hulu Langat & Anor And Another; [2024] 3 MLJ 329; [2024] 4 CLJ 1 FC ["Tegas Sejati"] requires the written opinions of the two assessors in a Land Reference under s 40D of the LAA to be given to parties for counsel to submit on their contents before the High Court delivers its decision.

[3] Counsel for the respondent does not agree or disagree but leaves it to the Court .

[4] The issue arose because of these passages of the judgment in Tegas Sejati:

[34] If judges are required to provide their reasons for arriving at any decision, all the more, the opinion of the assessors, which the law mandates must be in writing must be made available to the parties. Although these opinions are intended to assist the Court in arriving at a decision on the amount of compensation, it is imperative that parties have the opportunity to consider them and to respond, if necessary. At its most basic level, these opinions form and must be part of the records of the land reference proceedings, aside from the learned judge recording the fact that the written opinions were provided.

[35] As part of the records of the proceedings, these opinions become part of the records of appeal, should there be an appeal. The parties can then adequately prepare their appeals and the appellate courts will similarly be able to properly scrutinise these opinions and evaluate the complaints and concerns of the parties and how the same were addressed by the learned judge. See for instance Rohana Ariffin & Anor v. Universiti Sains Malaysia; [1989] 1 MLJ 487. If these written opinions are not made available, worse not form part of the records of appeal until and unless specifically sought for by any party, how is the question of adequacy of compensation to be properly addressed. How is the right enshrined in art 13(2) to be upheld?

[Emphasis Added]

Material Facts

[5] There are ten Land References fixed for hearing before me. In all these references the applicants are represented by the same firm and counsel whereas the respondents are all represented by Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia.

[6] The applicants all contend that the monetary compensation awarded by the Land Administrator are too low. [See encl 42 applicant's written submission at para 10].'

[7] All parties have agreed that my decision in this Land Reference will bind the other nine Land References.

[8] I heard counsel on 21 March 2024 and 21 May 2024. Thereafter I was transferred to another Court . At the request of parties to the Chief Judge of Malaya, these ten Land References were remitted back to me on 10 January 2025 for final disposal. Thus, the ten cases were fixed for continued hearing on 15 January 2025 before me and the two assessors appointed to assist me pursuant to s 40A of the LAA.

[9] After the conclusion of oral submissions, I brought up to counsel the new decision by the Federal Court in Tegas Sejati which requires the two assessors to prepare their respective assessors' reports which then have to be furnished to counsel for their perusal and further submissions on their contents to the Court before I deliver my decision.

Parties' Contentions

[10] The applicant in its written submissions encl 56 submits that the written opinions of the two assessors must be made available to all parties during the pr