Back
2021 MarsdenLR 223
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)
An appeal under section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is limited to genuine questions of law, distinguishing from factual disputes regarding compensation amounts.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1960 - Section 49(1) - Appeal concerning award of compensation - Threshold issue identified regarding appeal bar due to proviso in section 49(1) - Court of Appeal ruled on merit of appeal after negative ruling on threshold issue. (Paras 1, 14, 20, 27)
(B) Legal principle of appeal from High Court on compensation - Proviso to section 49(1) limits appeals to questions of law, distinguishing between issues of law and fact especially concerning compensation - Previous jurisprudence precedes regarding compensation awards. (Paras 21, 22, 37)
(C) Public interest and statutory interpretation concerning property rights - Emphasis on giving legislative intent primacy, ensuring adequate compensation under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution is considered in decisions made under the Land Acquisition Act. (Paras 56, 58)
Facts of the case:
Respondent's claim for compensation for land acquisition initially awarded RM16,516,800.00 by Land Administrator. High Court increased compensation to RM19,026,907.00 based on private valuer's report; Court of Appeal later increased compensation again based on questions of law raised by the respondent, who argued significant misdirections occurred. (Paras 4, 5, 75)
Findings of Court:
Court of Appeal decision acknowledged appeal went beyond just quantum of compensation into substantive legal questions highlighting issues of valuation principles applied. Respondent's questions do not fall under real technical questions of law as defined by prior rulings regarding section 49’s scope. (Paras 106, 111)
Issues: Whether the respondent’s questions on appeal were legitimate inquiries into legal matters or complaints directed at the amounts awarded by the High Court; meaning and purpose of ‘question of law’ under section 49(1) and precedence of the provision. (Paras 6, 63)
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that the questions posed by the respondent were ultimately complaints about the adequacy of compensation; no legitimate legal questions arose from the issues, thereby the appeal must adhere to statutory provisions regarding compensation limits under the Land Acquisition Act. (Paras 80, 112)
Result: Appeal allowed, Court of Appeal's decision set aside and High Court's compensation amount restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the factual background regarding land acquisition and compensation. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments related to the appeal and interpretation of section 49 of the land acquisition act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. court's analysis regarding the interpretation and implications of prior case law on compensation appeals. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99) |
| 4. ratio decidendi hinges on distinguishing between questions of fact and law within the context of compensation. (Para 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110) |
| 5. final conclusion reversing the court of appeal's decision and reinstating the high court's determination. (Para 111) |
[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 f
