2026 MarsdenLR 97380

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK SIBU
WONG SIONG TUNG, J
GOLDEN AGRO PLANTATION (MUKAH) BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF LANDS AND SURVEYS & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Land Reference No: SBW-15-3/7-2022 & SBW-15-4/7-2022]

Compensation for severance and injurious affection requires proof that land acquisition caused actual diminution in the market value of remaining land. Costs for preferred physical improvements, future operational expenses, or speculative mitigation are not compensable unless they directly mitigate an established loss in land value.

Headnote:(A) Land Code (Sarawak Cap. 81) - Sections 56, 57, 60(1)(c), (d), 62, 65(4), 67, 69 - Compulsory land acquisition - Adequacy of compensation - Claim for severance and injurious affection - Whether procedural compliance satisfied by general objection to compensation - Whether specific items of claim constitute compensable loss or non-compensable betterment - Burden of proof remains with claimant to show diminution in market value of remaining unacquired land. (Paras 30-48, 55-67)

(B) Valuation - Before and after method - While preferred, not an exclusive method of valuation for determining diminution - Court entitled to take practical and evaluative approach provided there is evidence of actual injury - Discretion to make reasonable estimate is dependent on existence of proved diminution. (Paras 60-64)

Facts of the case:
Two entities operating adjoining plantation estates challenged the adequacy of compensation awarded following the compulsory resumption of land for a public road project. The claimants accepted the basic award for the resumed land but claimed additional compensation under the head of injurious affection, including costs for engineering works, security structures, guards, and buffer zones, contending that the road bisected their operations and interfered with internal systems.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the claimants were not procedurally barred as the objection to the "amount of compensation" sufficiently invoked the court's duty to consider statutory components like severance and injurious affection. However, most claims for capital expenditure were disallowed as they amounted to preferred estate improvements or betterment rather than proven diminution of the remaining land's market value. The court allowed a limited sum for guard structures and a modest amount for the affected strip of land based on an assessment of the road's impact.

Issues: Whether the objection was procedurally valid, whether severance and injurious affection were established, whether the combined presentation of claims was fatal, and how to arrive at a just apportionment and cost order.

Ratio Decidendi: To succeed in a claim for injurious affection under the relevant land code, a claimant must provide evidence that the acquisition caused an actual diminution in the market value of the remaining unacquired land. Generalized claims for future operational expenses or desired estate upgrades do not qualify as compensable loss; the court will only award compensation for measurable, objectively justified impacts reflecting the loss of utility or value.

Result: Claims for engineering and security costs allowed only in small part; total additional compensation awarded with interest; objectors held not entitled to costs due to excessive claims; assessor fees apportioned.