The appeal against the compensation award is not permissible under ss 40D(3) and 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, reinforcing the non-appealability of decisions on compensation awards.

Introduction

[1] These four appeals arose out of the decision of the learned High Court Judge in respect of Land Reference No: 15NCVC-23-11-2012 (Appeal J-01 (NCVC)(A)-155-04-2013) in which he had awarded the appellant therein (Ng Chin Chai) additional compensation of RM76,812.00 for the acquisition of Lot 333, Grant No 1839, Mukim Sungai Segamat, Daerah Segamat, Johor. The learned judge, with the agreement of all parties, had used this case as a "test case" whereby the decision in the said case would bind the other three land reference cases, namely:-

(i) No 15NCVC-24-11-2012 (Appeal J-01(NCVC)(A)-156-04-2013);

(ii) No 15NCVC-25-11-2012 (Appeal J-01(NCVC)(A)-157-04-2013); and

(iii) No 15NCVC-26-11-2012 (Appeal J-01(NCVC)(A)-158-04-2013).

Salient Facts

[2] The appellants were co-proprietors of Lot 333 ("the said land") holding equal shares in the said land.

[3] Part of the said land was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of "Reservation Road at Taman Utama, Mukim Sungai Segamat, District of Segamat for Pokta Sdn Bhd" under s 3 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (" LAA "). The Declaration of Intended Acquisition under s 8 of the (Form D) was published in the Johor State Government Gazette No 5131 on 24 June 2010.

[4] The said declaration (Form D) was amended by the declaration in the Johor State Government Gazette No 4528 dated 14 April 2011.

[5] The said land is freehold, its category of land use agriculture with an express condition that the said land is to be used for plantation and the landowners are requested to take reasonable steps to maintain the said land from erosion.

[6] The said land comprises an area of 0.5691 hectare out of which 0.0519 hectare was acquired by the respondent pursuant to Form D dated 14 April 2011 ("the scheduled land").

[7] Following the enquiry conducted by the Land Administrator on 17 August 2011, a written award in Form G was prepared by the Land Administrator in which he awarded the appellants RM15,570.00 each for their ¼ share of the said land, making a total of RM62,280.00.

[8] He also awarded RM6,650.00 as costs resulting in a total compensation of RM68,930.00 awarded to the appellants for the acquisition of the said land. Objecting to the amount awarded, the appellants fied Form N under s 38(1) of the LAA , for the matter to be referred to the High Court Johor for determination.

[9] In the High Court, the learned judge after hearing parties and after taking into consideration the opinion of the two assessors, awarded the appellants additional compensation of RM76,812.00 for the scheduled land.

[10] Dissatisfid with the decision, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Appeal

[11] At the outset of the appeal, we posed the question to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the matter was appealable in view of the provisions of s 40D(3), s 49(1) of the LAA and the decision of the Federal Court in Calamas Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Batang Padang , .

[12] The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the decision of the Court on 14 March 2013 was appealable under s 49(1) of the LAA as it involved questions of law and not the award of compensation.

[13] The contention of the appellant is that the learned judge erred in law and in fact:-

(a) when he ignored and/or rejected the residual method of valuation in determining the market value of the scheduled land;

(b) when he acc