Back
2014 MarsdenLR 449
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
JAIS CHEE & ORS – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF LANDS & SURVEYS KUCHING DIVISION KUCHING – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: Q-01-724-2011]
Adequate compensation for compulsorily acquired land must reflect fair market values, particularly after significant delays in the inquiry process, aligning with constitutional mandates.
Headnote:(A) Sarawak Land Code - Sections 48, 49, and 60 - Federal Constitution - Article 13 - Appeal against refusal to increase land compensation for public acquisition - The learned High Court judge upheld the award based on the date of notification under s 48, leading to inadequate compensation determination. The court emphasized that adequate compensation must take into account the time elapsed before inquiry, confirming that valuations should reflect fair and reasonable market value as of 12 August 2005, consistent with constitutional guarantees. (Paras 8, 9, 25, 28)
(B) Legal interpretation - Statutory provisions should be read in conjunction with constitutional mandates, prioritizing adequate compensation under Article 13 over rigid adherence to previous valuation dates stipulated by state legislation. The court affirmed that any significant delay in inquiry should not annul the rights of the landowners to fair compensation. (Paras 15, 28, 29)
Facts of the case:
This appeal concerns two land lots acquired by the state for public purposes, with compensation claims leading to contested valuations before the High Court. A delay of nine years occurred before the compensation inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, and the compensation amount was set at RM812,385, exceeding prior determinations that neglected fair market values reflective of the true worth of the land as of the inquiry date.
Issues: The primary question addressed was whether the date of inquiry or the date of acquisition notification should establish the compensation value, alongside considerations of reasonable delays affecting landowner rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compensation must not only meet statutory requirements but also align with constitutional principles ensuring fair compensation for property deprivation, especially when delays arise.
Result: Appeal allowed, compensation increased to RM812,385.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against high court decision (Para 1 , 1) |
| 2. notification requirements under sarawak land code (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. reference made to high court for compensation (Para 5) |
| 4. disputes over valuation dates and amounts (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. interpreting valuation date per statute (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. adequate compensation requirement in federal constitution (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. delay in inquiry and its lawful implications (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. consequences of non-timely compensation payment (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
[1] This appeal is against the decision of the High Court in which the learned judge in respect of two consolidated land references refused to increase the awards given by the Superintendent of Lands and Survey Department Kuching for the acquisition of Lot 51 Bako Town District and Lot 685 Block 2 Muara Tebas Land District.
Background Facts
[2] The Minister on 3 October 1996 vide Gazette Notification No 2910 issued the relevant notices in respect of the above-mentioned lots under s 48 of the Sarawak Land Code . Such notices are required in law to inform the owners that their lands are acquired for public purposes. There is no dispute that the lands were used for public purposes.
[3] On 28 October 2005, notices were issued under s 49 of the Sarawak Land Code which in substance requires the Superintendent of Lands and Survey Department to notify the owners of the compulsorily acquired land that the State Government intends to take possession of the same and the owners may make their claims for compensations before the Superintendent of Lands and Survey Department at the time and place set out in the notices.
[4] The appellants had made the relevant claims for compensations to the Superintendent of Lands and Survey Department and on 24 November 2005 an Inquiry was held at the Lands and Survey Department, Kuching. One Puan Haslinda bte Hamdan was called by the respondent as the valuer to testify on the valuation of the lands and in her report she stated as follows:
'the subject land is under s 48 of the Land Code vide GN No 2910 dated 3 October 1996. In accordance with s 60(1)(a) of the Land Code this is the date of valuation ie at the date of s 48 of the Land Code but I have recommended (sic) that the date of this report is the date of valuation ie 12 August 2005 due to the time frame. At this date, I am of the opinion that the fair and reasonable market value is of RM32,040.00 and RM464,640.00 for Lot 51 and Lot 658 respectively.'
[5] The Superintendent then awarded the amount as recommended by Puan Haslinda bte Hamdan. Not satisfied with the compensation, the appellants made a reference to the High Court under s 56 of the Sarawak Land Code where the High Court is empowered to vary the amount of compensation awarded.
Land Reference Before The Learned Judge
[6] Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that the relevant date for valuing the compensation amount should be that as recommended by Puan Haslinda bte Hamdan and that is, 12 August 2005. Pursuant to that, the appellants called their own valuer (OW2) who had valued Lot 51 and Lot 658 at RM52,065.00 and RM760,320.00 respectively making a total compensation of RM812,385.00.
[7] The respondent called its valuer in RW1 who had adopted the valuation of Puan Haslinda bte Hamdan and used 3 October 1996 as the valuation date. As noted by the learned judge the differences between the two valuations are RM20,025.00 for Lot 51 and RM295,689.00 for Lot 658.
[8] The learned judge's rationale in refusing to disturb award can be seen in this paragraph of his grounds:
'Adopting the said 'recommended date (12 August 2005) would appear clearly advantageous, and in the context the objectors can hardly be blamed for expounding an argument supportive of their stand based on that date. That, inter alia, the market value at the date of posting of the declaration made under s 48 (3 October 1996) shall be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation
