Abu Mansor Ali JCA:

We have dismissed the appeal of the appellant/applicant against the award of compensation of RM15,000.00 per acre given by the learned judge on 9 October 1995. We heard arguments and unanimously rejected the appeal holding that the compensation awarded was fair and reasonable.

The subject land is situated in Pulau Batu Kawan approximately 27 kilometres to the south of Butterworth town. It is separated from the mainland by Sungai Jejawi in the north and in the south is Sungai Tengah and to the west is the Straits of Melaka. To get to Pulau Batu Kawan one has to resort to using the ferry from Bukit Tambun to Pengkalan Utama Batu Kawan. A bridge was at the relevant time yet to be built. A section of Batu Kawan Estate is planted with palm oil and some areas were under rubber and some areas under fruit trees or dusun.

The material date when the government valuer inspected the subject land was on 11 October 1990. He visited the subject land again on 16 October 1990. A private valuer made visits to the subject land on 22 and 30 April 1991.

What could be gathered from the government valuer's report was that the island's communication with the mainland was by ferry provided free of charge by the government. The ferry was in service for 12 hours a day and 5 vehicles could be transported across at a time. At the time of the government valuer's visit a bridge to the island was being built by the JKR and in October 1990 it was 20% completed and it was scheduled to be ready in April 1992 or thereabouts.

According to the town planner the use of the subject land was for agriculture and the highest use was for animal husbandry. In his opinion the planner was unable to see how the subject land could have a good development potential because of the then short-comings of the subject land and the surrounding areas as described above.

Based on his opinion that the land was for agriculture, the government valuer gave the land value as follows:

Lot Se ekar

274 RM7,284.50

126, 248, 252 & 235 RM7,689.19

135 RM14,164.30

Before the learned trial judge, the parties did not call any witness but applied to put in written submissions. In his written submissions, the appellant submitted that the subject land, according to valuer Talhar & Wong, had good potential as industrial land which fact was not denied by the State Legal Adviser on behalf of the Collector but the material consideration was whether the subject land had immediate potential or the potential was remote. It cannot be denied that whatever potential the subject land had, in view of its conditions and location and the poor communication at the time of inspection from the mainland, must and had to be considered as remote.

The learned judge in the court below observed that on 13 September 1995 Mokhtar bin Hj. Sidin J (as he was then) had considered in another case the value of a piece of land Lot 272 in the same area in Batu Kawan similar, in all respects ie, in size etc to the subject land in the present appeal. Mokhtar bin Hj. Sidin J fixed the value of the land in the case before him at RM15,000.

The applicants were told by the learned judge at first instance that he was mindful of following Mokhtar bin Hj. Sidin J and he adjourned the hearing to 18 September 1995 if parties wanted to make further submissions and to bring witnesses if they so wish. The result was counsel for the appellant Encik Ghazi bin Ishak chose not to add anything more and the learned State Legal Adviser pointed to the court that the subject land, in this appeal, was smaller in size than that of the land acquired in the judgment of Mokhtar bin Hj. Sidin J. The learned judge in the present appeal decided to fix the value of the subject land also at RM15,000 per acre giving his reason for awarding RM15,000 per acre for the whole land irrespective of their size, unlike what the Collector did and after considering their potentiality for development.

It is also to be noted that the learn