Back
2019 MarsdenLR 1643
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AMITABHA GUHA & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: B-01(A)-217-03-2018]
Compensation for land acquisition must consider suitable valuation methods, including acquisition comparables, but only sale comparables are mandated under specific provisions.
Headnote:This judgment discusses an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 concerning compensation for land acquired for public purposes. The court evaluated comparables, market value assessment methodologies, and legal obligations regarding possession of land. The court ultimately dismissed the appellant's claims, affirming the compensation awarded by the High Court.
Grounds of Appeal:
-
The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in holding that acquisition comparables could be used as a suitable method of valuation for assessing market value under para 1(1A) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960, and further erred in preferring a sale comparable endorsed by both assessors without sufficient justification for rejecting other comparables. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in holding that the misdescription of the acquired land's category of use (as "general" instead of "Bangunan/Perniagaan") did not vitiate the market value assessment, notwithstanding that such error affected the assessors' valuations and the judge's adoption of the adjusted value. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in refusing compensation for injurious affection under para 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960 in respect of contiguous lots not compulsorily acquired, as the construction of the slip road did not adequately mitigate the loss of access via the acquired land and evidence showed diminution in value. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
The learned trial judge erred in law in holding that "taking possession of the land" under ss 32(1C) and 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 refers only to physical possession by the Land Administrator under s 18 or via Certificate of Urgency under s 19, thereby excluding pre-award entry and possession by the acquiring authority's contractor which effectively deprived the owner of possession. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compensation determination for acquired land must account for the correct valuation methods. (Para 1 , 2 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. questions regarding possession and assessment procedures are critical in compensation disputes. (Para 14 , 54 , 61) |
| 3. injurious affection claims must be substantiated by evidence. (Para 37 , 44) |
[1] This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [" LAA "] by the appellants against the decision of the learned High Court Judge, given on 16 March 2018, in awarding an additional sum of RM1,703,566.92 in respect of the Acquired Lands.
[2] The appellants were the registered proprietors of the properties comprising two contiguous parcels of land identified as Lot 719 and Lot 1286, both in Mukim of Kajang, District of Hulu Langat, Selangor ["Subject Properties"]. A portion of Lot 719 and Lot 1286 ["Acquired Lands"] had been acquired by the respondent for the construction of Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang ["SILK Highway"].
[3] The appellants were also the registered proprietors of four contiguous lots, namely, Lot 716, 717, 718 and 1285, all in Mukim of Kajang, District of Hulu Langat, Selangor, adjoining the Subject Properties ["Four Contiguous Lots"].
[4] The map showing the Subject Properties and the Four Contiguous Lots is reproduced below:
Note: the black shaded areas were the Acquired Lands for SILK Highway.
[5] The declaration of the intended acquisition (Form D) of the Acquired Lands for the SILK Highway was gazetted on 25 November 1999.
[6] After the enquiry, the respondent issued its award of compensation dated 7 April 2000 for the following amounts:
[7] The awarded compensation sum of RM349,519.32 was paid to the appellants on 8 May 2000 which the appellants accepted under protest.
[8] The appellants thereafter filed objections to the awarded compensation sum which were then referred to the High Court for determination.
[9] The High Court delivered its decision on 30 November 2010 awarding the total sum of RM1,057,740.98, an increase of RM708,221.66. The excess sum was paid to the Appellants on 6 June 2011.
[10] The Appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal. While pending the hearing in the Court of Appeal, the Appellants filed an application to refer certain constitutional questions to the Federal Court, which was allowed by the Court of Appeal on 17 April 2013.
[11] On 20 April 2017, the Federal Court decided the constitutional question and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal. In view of the Federal Court's decision, the Court of Appeal on 25 May 2017 remitted the matter to the High Court for rehearing.
[12] The High Court reheard the matter and delivered its decision on 16 March 2018 and made an award in the total sum of RM2,761,307.90 which comprised the following:
[13] Dissatisfied, the appellants brought the present appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 16 March 2018.
Questions Of Law
[14] The appellants raised the following questions of law in this appeal:
(1) Whether in accordance with, para 1(1A) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [ LAA ], the principle of equivalence and the decision of the Federal Court in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Another Case, (Semenyih 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 subject lands) when assessing the market value of the Acquired Lands ["Comparable Acquisition Issue"];
(2) 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 ["Category of Land Use Issue"];
(3) Whether the High Court was legally obliged to award injurious affection for all the Four Contiguo
