This matter was referred to us pursuant to an application made by the landowner under section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1960. The land in question (referred to as the acquired land) is a freehold rubber plantation about 13 acres 0 Rood 9 Poles in area situated in the Mukim of Masjid Tanah, Malacca. It is a second layer lot located off the 19 milestone Masjid Tanah/Lubok China Road. Notification for intended acquisition pursuant to section 8 of the Act was gazetted August 30, 1979 and therefore that is the date relevant for valuation purposes.

The objection disclosed by the applicant in Form N is on the amount of compensation and the reason advanced on such objection is based on the compensation being lower than the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time.

I do not think it is necessary for us to go into further discussions on the meaning of market value except to reproduce hereunder the oft cited passage of Jenkins C.J. in the renowned case of Kailas Chandra v Secretary of State 17 Cal LJ 35 as follows:

"The market value of any land may be roughly described as the price that an owner willing, and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser with whom he was bargaining for sale and purchase of the land."

The next thing we had to decide was on the method of valuation to be employed in arriving at our conclusions. The five known methods of valuation are usually based on:

(i) opinion of experts;

(ii) costing method i.e. by adding to the primordial value of the land any costs of improvement and all elements of profits.

(iii) comparative sale of lands in the neighbourhood of the acquired land;

(iv) a number of years' purchase of the profit from the land acquired;

(v) the residual method i.e. by retrocessive deduction of the cost of development and building from a built up property so as to arrive at the residual cost of the land.

Of these recognised methods, the most frequently resorted to and certainly the best guide to a fair valuation is the comparative method — see Nanyang Manufacturing Co v The Collector of Land Revenue, Johore [1954] MLJ 69. With this principle in mind I shall proceed to examine the arguments advanced by the applicant and the respondent.

The applicant's case rests heavily on the expression of opinion of the landowner himself and that of Tuan Haji Abdul Jalil, a licensed appraiser. The landowner is obviously not an expert and therefore very little weight can be attached to his opinion. Tuan Haji Abdul Jalil's opinion is contained in his report (exhibit B) in which he concludes that in the light of the location, zoning and the services available the acquired land is to be valued at $15,000.00 per acre. Tuan Haji Abdul Jalil however produced no other evidence to support his conclusion. Needless to say the appraiser's determination of the market value in this case was based on his mere personal opinion. The report also went into considerable details on the acquired land's value as a productive rubber estate but this particular element will not render the market price of the land as an agricultural holding any higher than the compensation already paid to the applicant. Moreover, as Tuan Haji Abdul Jalil said in evidence his valuation of the land at $15,000.00 per acre is based on potential value and not on its agricultural value.

An attempt was subsequently made to get Tuan Haji Jalil to cite several sale comparisons but the appraiser, with absolute frankness, denied that such report was put up by him and that he was relying on his own assessment of potential value without any evidence of comparative sales.

The weight and accuracy to be attached to the valuation of an expert has been lucidly expressed by Buhagiar J. in the Nanyang Manufacturing Co v The Collector of Land Revenue, Johore [1954] MLJ 69 and by Suffian J. (as he then was) in Superintendent of Lands and Surveys, Sarawak v Aik Hoe & Co Ltd [1966] 1 MLJ 243 as follows:

"Estimates are undou