Hashim Yeop A Sani J:

This is an objection under s. 37(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 against the award of the Collector of Land Revenue Dindings, in respect of land in EMR 779, Lot No. 1657, in the Mukim of Lumut, in the District of Dindings, covering an area of six acres three roods 32 poles, belonging to the applicant, on which are also found the main building of the Outward Bound School, Wardens Bungalow, Instructors Quarters, Store and Workshop, and Storage and Supply Installations belonging to the Outward Bound Trust of Malaysia, the applicant. The land was compulsorily acquired for the proposed site of the Royal Malaysian Navy Military Base. It is not disputed that the provisions of ss. 4 and 8 of the Act have been complied with and that an inquiry was held by the Collector under s. 12 of the Act following the service of the notices required under ss. 10 and 11 of the Act .

In Form Order which was referred to the Court by the Collector under s. 38(5) of the Act , it is stated that the amount of compensation awarded under s. 14 is $211,257 and the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined are set out in the said form after considering the advice of the Director of Valuation, Perak.

In a proceeding of this nature the position of the parties has been well-settled. Since the applicant is satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded the onus is on the applicant to show that the award of the Collector was inadequate as stated by Broomfield J in Assistant Development officer, Bombay v. Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori AIR 1933 Bomb 361, 364:

The party claiming enhanced compensation is more or less in the position of a plaintiff and must produce evidence to show that the award is inadequate. If he has no evidence the award must stand, and if he succeeds in showing prima facie that the award is inadequate, then Government must support the award by producing evidence.

This authority was cited in Chuah Say Hai & Ors. V. Collector Of Land Revenue, Kuala Lumpur [1967] 1 MLRH 445; [1967] 2 MLJ 99 and Wan Mohamed v. Collector of Land Revenue, Kota Bharu . In Collector of Land Revenue v. Alagappa Chettiar [1968] 1 MLRA 696; [1971] 1 MLJ 43 the position was re-stated by Lord Diplock in the judgment of the Privy Council as follows:

It is in the nature of an original hearing in which the applicant is the plaintiff and the collector the defendant. The onus lies upon the applicant to satisfy the Court by evidence that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate; and the collector is entitled to call evidence in support of the amount awarded.

From what I can gather the applicant's contention was that this was a unique case in that the Outward Bound School itself should be regarded as a public purpose and therefore the acquisition called for an"unusual principle" of compensation. It was therefore submitted by Counsel that the principle of reinstatement should be applied. Counsel further submitted that judging from the records those concerned with the inquiry before the Collector were already thinking in terms of the reinstatement principle although the award finally made did not reflect this consideration. Coming to the basic question first, the reinstatement principle has as far as I know never been applied before in land acquisition cases in this country and therefore I informed both parties that I should make a ruling on this issue first before hearing any evidence. Consequently the preliminary submissions were confined only to the question whether the reinstatement principle is recognised in our Land Acquisition Act, 1960 and if so whether it applies to this case.

It is not disputed that the government has acquired another piece of land not far from the land the subject of this reference for the purpose of the Outward Bound School. It appears the learned Legal Adviser had doubts whether the acquisition was for a public purpose. But I do not think this narrow issue is material for th