JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

The appellant who is the Land Administrator, District of Petaling, being dissatisfied with the award of compensation made by the learned judge in the court below in respect of a building - a warehouse situated on the respondent's land acquired by appellant, has appealed to us.

The facts of the case have been adequately dealt with by the learned judge in his judgment. There is no need to repeat them at length here.

Briefly, the respondent was, until the acquisition declaration, the registered proprietor of a piece of land in the District of Petaling ("the subject property"). The subject property was under Mukim title. It is on level ground. The express condition of use was for agriculture only. The respondent, on 18 December 1981, applied for planning permission to construct a warehouse on the subject property. However, until the date of acquisition of the subject property in March 1985 there was no response from those entrusted by law to consider and deal with applications for planning permission. The learned Legal Adviser of Selangor concedes that he is unaware of the reasons for the absence of such response. I may add for completeness that Form K under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("the Act") was issued by appellant on 22 January 1987.

When the judge came to assess the compensation there was some argument about whether respondent ought to be compensated for loss of the warehouse as well. It was argued by the appellant in the court below that no account should be taken of the warehouse and that no compensation should be given in respect of it. For the respondent it was contended that compensation ought to be awarded even though it was a warehouse that had been built on agricultural land.

The learned judge agreed with respondent's submission. He then made an award of RM440,000 for the warehouse. The learned judge also confirmed the award of RM260,000 earlier made by appellant. Against this latter order there is no appeal.

The learned Legal Adviser argued before us that the learned judge was wrong in making an award for the warehouse by relying on ss. 20 and 21 of Land Acquisition Act 1960. These sections provide as follows:

20. Where on any scheduled land in respect of which a Certificate of Urgency has been issued there is any building the Land Administrator shall, upon taking formal possession, as provided in section 22 of the land not built upon, serve notices in Form J upon:

(a) the occupier of the building requiring that he vacate the building within such period, not exceeding sixty days from the date of the notice, as may be specified therein;

(b) the owner of the building making an offer of compensation in respect of the building:

(i) where the building is a permanent structure, of the value of the building as it stands;

(ii) where the building is a temporary construction, or is otherwise capable of removal and re-erection, of the value of the building or the cost of its removal and re-erection.

21(1)Where the owner of a building accepts the offer of compensation under s. 20 the Land Administrator:

(a) may take possession of such building on the expiration of the period prescribed in the notice in Form J; or

(b) may, upon its removal by the proprietor, pay the cost of its removal and re-erection.

(2)Where the owner of a building does not accept an offer of compensation under s. 20 of the Land Administrator:

(a) where the building is a permanent structure, shall not take possession thereof until he has obtained a valuation of such building by a competent valuer; or

(b) where the building is of temporary contruction, or is otherwise capable of removal and re-erection, may himself remove and re-erect such building.

The learned Legal Adviser submitted that these two sections have relevance to the issues raised because there was an absence of Certificate of Urgency of which ss. 20 and 21 speak of. I think the learned Legal Adviser is correct in this argument. I agree with his sub