2026 MarsdenLR 851

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
WONG MEE LING, J
PUTARAN JAYA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LAND ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHOR BAHRU – Respondent
[Land Reference No: JA-15-42-07/2021]

In compulsory land acquisition, compensation for injurious affection is justified when severance significantly impairs the development potential or marketability of remaining land. However, claims for incidental costs related to lapsed, undeveloped projects are generally excluded as being too remote and not a natural consequence of the acquisition.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 - Section 3(1)(a) - First Schedule, Paragraph 2(d) and 2(f) - Compulsory acquisition - Market value assessment - Injurious affection - Compensation arising from land severance - Principles of valuation via comparison method - Requirement for evidence of prima facie inadequacy of original award. (Paras 1, 15, 16, 22, 52)

(B) Valuation - Methods of assessment - Market value defined as price willing vendor expects from willing purchaser - Importance of comparable sales in same locality - Expert evidence requires corroboration to carry probative weight - Burden of proof rests on claimant to establish inadequate compensation. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 21, 24)

(C) Injurious Affection - Defined as damage sustained or likely to be sustained by reason of severance or impact on other property - Not limited to actual damage; includes potential or likely future damage - Changes in land shape and development potential constitute valid grounds for claim. (Paras 46, 53, 54, 67)

Facts of the case:
Following the compulsory acquisition of a portion of land for a public infrastructure project, the landowner appealed against the compensation awarded by the land authority. The landowner contended that the market value calculation was insufficient, that the remaining portion of the land suffered from injurious affection due to loss of access and reduction in usable development footprint, and that various incidental costs incurred for previous planned development should be reimbursed.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the market value of the acquired land was appropriately assessed by the authorities using comparable sales and that the applicant failed to prove the original award was inadequate. However, the court found merit in the claim for injurious affection, noting that the acquisition resulted in an irregular shape that negatively impacted the viability of future building footprints. The court rejected the claim for incidental costs as these, related to lapsed planning permissions, were too remote and not a direct consequence of the acquisition.

Issues: The main issues were whether the market value awarded was reasonable, whether compensation for injurious affection regarding the remaining land was justified, and whether the claimant was entitled to recover pre-acquisition administrative and professional expenses.

Ratio Decidendi: The market value of acquired land is determined by comparing similar transactions, and the burden lies on the claimant to prove any insufficiency in the official award. For injurious affection, a claim is valid where the severance significantly diminishes the potential use or value of the remaining land, even if the loss is prospective rather than purely historical. Incidental costs incurred for speculative or abandoned development plans are generally too remote to be compensable. Result : Application allowed in part; additional award granted for injurious affection while the original market value assessment was maintained.