The court determined that appeals regarding compensation under section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act primarily involve fact-based evaluations and do not constitute legitimate questions of law, thereby barring such appeals.

[1]This appeal brings to sharp focus, once again, the meaning, intent and ambit of section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 proviso to section 49(1), whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal and thence to this Court, is barred by reason of the proviso. This issue was raised as a threshold issue at the Court of Appeal which went on to rule in the negative before deciding the appeal on its merits. This threshold issue forms the core issue in this appeal.

Facts

[2]The salient facts are gathered from the respective grounds of judgment of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

[3]According to the High Court, the respondent had invoked section 38(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960Pembinaan Loji Rawatan Air Kumbahan di Hulu Sungai Segget di Mukim Bandar Johor Bahru Daerah Johor Bahru untuk Jabatan Perdana Menteri di bawah perenggan 3(1)(a) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960”.

[4]The Land Administrator had awarded a sum of RM16,516,800.00 as compensation for the acquisition. The respondent claimed that the fair market value of the scheduled land was RM28,830,074.40, that is, a rate of RM6,458.35 per square metre. A private valuer’s report was offered in support - see pages 84 to 121, record of appeal. The respondent had also claimed a loss of income of RM40,200.00 for loss of use of the scheduled land as a car park for 67 vehicles. In coming to his award, the Land Administrator had relied on the recommendations of the Government Valuer who had offered 4 comparable sales in his valuation of the scheduled land [see valuation report at pages 122 to 174, record of appeal]. After making the necessary adjustments to account for differences between the scheduled land and the comparable sales, the Government Valuer had recommended a market value of RM3,700.00 per square metre. The Land Administrator rejected the respondent’s claim for loss of income.

[5]On 9.8.2018, assisted by assessors, the High Court increased the amount of compensation from RM16,516,800.00 to RM19,026,907.00 after being satisfied that this represented the fair market value of the scheduled land. The respondent had relied on a valuation report prepared by a private valuer to justify its claim for increased compensation at the High Court. The private valuer had suggested 4 comparable sales in his valuation report. Each comparable was assessed and rejected by the

High Court and the reasons for the rejection are set out at paragraphs [6] to [23] of the grounds of decision.

[6]The appellant also offered 4 comparables through the Government valuer. The learned Judge and the assessors agreed that the best comparable was Comparable No. 1 but rejected Comparable Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Reasons for this decision were also given - see paragraphs [16] to [23]. After making adjustments, the High Court, as the Land Reference Court, increased the market value of the scheduled land to RM19,026,907.00, that is, a further amount of RM2,510,107.00 as compensation for the acquisition of the scheduled land together with interest. Those adjustments involved a total deduction of 30%: 5% for location, 10% for access, 5% for layer and 10% for size.

[7]The learned Judge tabulated his reasons for the decision-

[8]The High Court decided not to make any adjustments to increase the value for potentialities development taking the opinion that this had already been taken into consideration in arriving at the value of RM5,799.44 per m2 - see paragraph [23].

[9]The respondent was still dissatisfied with this amount of compensation. And, so it appealed.

Proceedings before the Court of Appeal

[10]At the Court of Appeal, the appellant raised the issue