Back
2021 MarsdenLR 2119
FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH, CJ, HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM, CJ, MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, J
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor – Plaintiff
Versus
Nusantara Daya Sdn Bhd – Defendant
CIVIL APPEAL NO 01(f)-24-08 OF 2019(J)
Khoo Guan Huat (Madihah bt Zainol, Vijay Raj and Tan Hui Wen with him) (Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang NegeriJohor) for the appellant.
Gopal Sri Ram (Clarence Edwin, Margaret Tan Hui Ling, R Paramananda, How Lee Ming and Marcus Lee with him) (Clarence Edwin Law Office) for the respondent.
The appeal was barred under section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as all issues raised pertained to compensation quantum and not valid questions of law.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1960 - Section 49(1) - Appeal on compensation - Central issue pertained to whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal was barred due to section 49's proviso - The appellant contended the Court of Appeal acted wrongly in permitting the appeal concerning compensation, arguing it involved questions of fact and not law. (Paras 14, 20, 36, 49, 80)
(B) Compensation Determination - Issues revolved around deductions made for size, location, access, and lack of development potential against comparable sales - The High Court's adjustments were disputed as erroneous and constituting a double counting of deductions - Court established that appeals limited under section 49(1) did not extend to appeals based solely on quantum of compensation. (Paras 14, 33, 74, 80)
(C) Findings and Decision - Court elaborated on previous cases including Semenyih Jaya and clarified that the appeal was fundamentally about compensation adequacy and not valid questions of law - The appeal was unanimously allowed, restoring the High Court's decision dated 9.8.2018. (Paras 14, 111) Facts of the Case: The appeal was initiated after a dispute on compensation decided by the High Court, where the compensatory award was questioned by the respondent based on certain deductions and valuations deemed unjustified.
Findings of Court:
Court concluded that all concerns raised were fundamentally tied to the assessment of compensation, which fell within the restrictions of section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, thereby precluding a further appeal.
Issues: The issues focused on whether the deductions made by the High Court were erroneous in law and whether the grounds for appeal raised legitimate questions of law as per established principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the complaints posed by the respondent did not constitute legitimate questions of law but rather factual claims regarding the valuation of compensation, reaffirming that the statutory preclusive framework must be upheld.
Result: Appeal allowed and the decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside, restoring the High Court's decision.
[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 1960 Pembinaan 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 “relating to whether the appeal is limited to issues of fact on ground of quantum of compensation”. It was the submission of the appellant that the appeal was barred by reason of section 49 of Act 486 as the three main points or issues relied on by the respondent, namely the 10% deduction to market value; double counting and potential development value of scheduled land related to
