Back
2021 MarsdenLR 233
FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)
AZAHAR MOHAMED, CJ, VERNON ONG LAM KIAT, J, ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF, J
Amitabha Guha (sebagai wasi bagi harta pusaka Madhabendra Mohan Guha) – Plaintiff
Versus
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat – Defendant
RAYUAN SIVIL NO 01(f)-35-11/2019(B
Ambiga Sreenevasan (Shireen Selvaratnam, Heng Yee Kiat and Lim Wei Jiet with her) (Christopher & Lee Ong) for the appellant.
Siti Fatimah bt Talib (Etty Eliany bt Tesno with her) (Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor) for the respondent.
The Land Acquisition Act mandates landowners receive equitable compensation, emphasizing the use of applicable comparables and addressing injurious affection claims fairly, while clarifying legislative intent regarding possession-based adjustments to compensation.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Sections 40D(3), 49(1), 68(1)(d) - Land acquisition for SILK Highway - Appeal regarding compensation amount - High Court's award of RM2,411,788.58 was contested by appellants who claimed additional compensation based on comparables and injurious affection - Federal Court's ruling on constitutionality clarified issues under the Land Acquisition Act - Court of Appeal upheld High Court’s findings that the selected comparable properties were accepted and that substantial non-compensated injurious affection for contiguous lots was unnecessary. (Paras 1-80)
(B) Compensation - Principle of equivalence - Landowners entitled to fair compensation reflecting true loss should include all potential values and market considerations, guided by comparable sales over the previous two years. (Paras 20-24, 28-30)
(C) Process of determining injury effects - Court of Appeal confirmed that physical site inspections and assessments were fundamental for supportive judgment on compensation. (Paras 56-66)
Facts of the case:
Compulsory acquisition of parcels of land belonging to appellants for the construction of SILK Highway resulted in disputes regarding compensation, with varying awards from the Land Administrator and subsequent challenges in the courts leading to findings on comparable acquisitions and injurious affection.
Findings of Court:
Appellants ultimately entitled to late payment charges at 8% per annum from the date of possession as per statutory provisions, affirming the Court’s discretion on determining compensatory rights under LAA 1960.
Issues: Main questions related to determination of fair compensation valuation, treatment of injurious affection for adjacent lots, calculation timelines for late payments, and legal interpretative conflicts under statutory amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized principles of equivalence and fairness in land acquisition compensations, while reaffirming that judicial determinations on land values made by approved assessors are vital and binding unless procedural errors arise.
Result: Appeals allowed in part with costs granted for valuation fees under specific provisions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on land acquisition and compensation process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's reasoning on various legal issues presented. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. arguments presented by the appellants regarding compensation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. final decision on all questions raised with statutory interpretation. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
[1]The appellants were the registered proprietors of 2 contiguous parcels of commercial land known as Lot 719 and Lot 1286, adjoining the SILK Highway (“Subject Properties”). This appeal relates to the acquisition of portions of two contiguous plots of land (“Acquired Lands”) belonging to the appellants for the “Projek Penyuraian Trafik Jalan Lingkaran Kajang (SILK) - Pembinaan Persimpangan Bertingkat Berhampiran Plaza Tol Kajang)”[“SILK Highway”] in 1999 pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ( LAA 1960). The declaration of intended acquisition was gazetted vide Form D on 25.11.1999.
[2]Following an enquiry, the Land Administrator issued the following awards of compensation on 7.4.2000:
[3]The LA’s Awards sum of RM349,519.32 was paid to the appellants on 8.5.2000. The appellants accepted the LA’s Award under protest and filed objections on the compensation amount under Form N. In due course, the matter was referred to the High Court. After hearing of parties, on 30.11.2010 the High Court awarded the total excess sum of RM1,057,740.98; increasing the LA’s Award by a sum of RM708,221.66 (“2011 High Court Order”). The excess sum was paid to the appellants on 6.6.2011.
[4]Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. Meanwhile, the appellants filed an application to refer certain constitutional questions to the Federal Court. On 20.4.2017, the Federal Court’s ruling on the questions posed by the appellants are as follows:
(i) Sections 40D (3)s 49(1) LAA 1960s 68(1)(d) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 CJA 1964) are not ultra vires Article 121(1B) of the Federal Constitution particularly when read in the context of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution; and
(ii) Sections 40D (1) & (2) LAA 1960ultra vires Article 121 of the Federal Constitution read in the context of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution.
[5]In view of the Federal Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal on 25.5.2017 remitted the matter to the High Court for rehearing. Consequently, the 2011 High Court Order was set aside. After a rehearing of the matter, the High Court gave its decision on 16.3.2018 whereby the High Court allowed an excess sum of RM2,411,788.58 over and above the LA’s awards. The particulars of the total amount awarded by the High Court are as follows:
[6]The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal on eight questions of law:
Question 1 - Comparable Acquisition Issue
Whether in accordance with Paragraph 1(1A) of the First Schedule to the LAA 1960, the principle of equivalence and the decision of the Federal Court in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and another case [2017] 3 MLJ 561Semenyih Jaya), the High Court was right to disregard some of the appellants’ comparables including the acquisition comparables – that is, the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Administrator for lands (which were situated within the vicinity of the Acquired Lands) when assessing the market value of the Acquired Lands;
Question 2 - Category of Land Use Issue
Whether the High Court could disregard the undisputed fact that prior to and at the time of the acquisition, the Acquired Lands were held under the category of land use “Bangunan” with express condition “Bangunan Perniagaan” when assessing market value of the Acquired Lands;
Question 3 - Injurious Affection for Contiguous Lots Issue Whether the High Court was le
