Back
2024 MarsdenLR 437
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
TEGAS SEJATI SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH DAN DAERAH HULU LANGAT & ANOR AND ANOTHER – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: 01(f)-46-11/2022(B) & 01(f)-47-11/2022(B)]
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for assessors' written opinions in land acquisition proceedings necessitates appellate intervention and rehearing.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act 1960 – Section 40C – Non-compliance with statutory requirements for assessors' written opinions – The court found serious non-compliance with s 40C, warranting appellate intervention and remitting the matter for re-hearing. (Paras 1, 39)
(B) Constitutional Right to Property – Article 13 – The court emphasized the necessity of transparency and fairness in land reference proceedings, ensuring that assessors' opinions are made available to parties involved. (Paras 24, 36)
Facts of the case: The appellant entered into a joint-venture agreement for land development, leading to disputes over compensation following land acquisition by the State Government. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court: The court determined that non-compliance with s 40C necessitated a rehearing of the matter in the High Court. (Paras 39)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of written opinions from assessors and compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that written opinions of assessors must be made available to parties to ensure transparency and uphold the constitutional right to property. (Paras 34-38)
Result: Appeals allowed; matter remitted to the High Court for re-hearing.
JUDGMENT
[1] Although eight issues were identified for determination by this court, we allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to the High court for a re-hearing after finding on the single issue of non-compliance of s 40C of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486]. We found the non-compliance to be serious warranting us to intervene under the principles of appellate intervention.
Relevant Factual Background
[2] On 11 December 1987, the appellant entered into a joint-venture agreement with Perbadanan Setiausaha Kerajaan Selangor [PSKS] to develop several lots of land located at s 15, Daerah Hulu Langat in the State of Selangor. PSKS, as registered proprietor received the entire consideration under that joint-venture agreement and relinquished its rights to the appellant in respect of those lands.
[3] Some of the land involved in that development was subdivided into Lots 35126, 35127 and 35129. These subdivided lots were initially acquired by the State Government on 23 July 2015 for the purpose of "Projek Lebuhraya Bertingkat Sungai Besi - Ulu Kelang (SUKE), Daerah Ulu Langat, Selangor". Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia [LLM], the 2nd respondent was the paymaster for this acquisition. On 9 December 2016, the declaration of acquisition was amended to involve only Lots 35126 and 35127.
[4] Arguments later arose over the assessment of compensation for the acquisition, including the date of valuation, whether it should be by reference to the first date of acquisition in 2015 or the later date in 2016; and whether development costs are compensable. If so, by reference to which of those two dates of acquisition.
[5] At the enquiry held on 16 May 2017, the 1st respondent, the Land Administrator found that it was difficult to divide or separate the development costs based on each lot. On the suggestion of the appellant, the Land Administrator considered these costs as part of the claim for compensation for Lot 35129 whereas the compensation for the remaining two lots would cover only claims for land value and injurious affection. Apparently, LLM's representatives did not object to that suggestion.
[6] On 16 May 2017, the 1st respondent handed down an award for compensation to which both LLM and the appellant, objected. The 1st respondent awarded compensation for market value, costs of preliminary works, costs of termination of the contractor and consultant agreements, costs of site replacement and loss of profit amounting to RM59,706,236.85.
[7] Both LLM and the appellant filed their respective objections vide Form N and this led to two land reference proceedings before the High court, as prescribed under s 36 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486]. Both land reference proceedings were rightly consolidated and heard together.
[8] On 22 September 2020, the appellant filed an application seeking to strike out the 1st respondent's land reference proceedings under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 [enclosure 48]. This application was heard together with the merits of the land reference proceedings; the latter involved the assistance of two assessors, as provided under s 40A of Act 486.
[9] On 14 December 2020, the High court delivered its decisions for both the striking out application as well as the land references [1st written grounds]. Full grounds were later released on 4 February 2021 [2nd written grounds]. By these decisions, the High court dismissed encl 48, dismissed the appellant's land reference and allowed LLM's land reference.
[10] The appellant appealed against both decisions on 22 December 2020. LLM cross-appealed, seeking to vary part of the High court's decision and a return or repayment of an excess sum of over RM31 million together with interest.
[11] On 4 October 2022, the court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeals, allowed LLM's cross-appeal and directed a refund of the excess sum together with interest.
[12] The appellant appealed. Its principal grounds being:
i. Whether the full grounds released on 4 F
