MESYUARAT PEMBENTANGAN

KERTAS PENYELIDIKAN JABATAN BIL. 3/2009

21– 23 DISEMBER 2009

DEWAN NUSANTARA, MENARA SRI SAUJANA

INSPEN

KERTAS PENYELIDIKAN

KAJIAN TERHADAP KEPUTUSAN KES MAHKAMAH BERKAITAN PRINSIP

DAN PENENTUAN PAMPASAN DIBAWAH PARA (2), JADUAL PERTAMA

AKTA PENGAMBILAN TANAH 1960

Disediakan oleh:

Sharmila Shafie (INSPEN)

Mohd Haris Yeop (JPPH Perak)

2009 --------------------------------------------------------------- Jabatan Penilaian Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia

1

KAJIAN TERHADAP KEPUTUSAN KES MAHKAMAH BERKAITAN PRINSIP

DAN PENENTUAN PAMPASAN DIBAWAH PARA (2), JADUAL PERTAMA

AKTA PENGAMBILAN TANAH 1960

Disediakan oleh:

Sharmila Shafie (INSPEN)

Mohd Haris Yeop (JPPH Perak)

1.0 BAB 1 : PENGENALAN

1.1 Latar Belakang Kajian

Pihak Berkuasa Negeri (PBN) melalui peruntukan undang-undang boleh

memperolehi tanah berimilik bagi maksud pembangunan yang membawa

manafaat kepada awam. Perkara (13)1 mengatakan tiada seorang pun boleh

dilucutkan hartanya kecuali mengikut undang-undang dan tiada sesuatu undang-

undang pun boleh membuat peruntukan bagi mengambil atau menggunakan harta-

harta dengan paksa dengan tiada pampasan yang mencukupi. Hakim Y.A Yeop

Sani di dalam kes S. Kulasingam & Anor v. Commissioner of Lands, Federal

Territory & Ors (MLJ,1982) menafsirkan Perkara 13 sebagai satu jaminan

bahawa seseorang itu tidak boleh dinafikan hak memiliki harta semata-mata atas

kuasa eksekutif.

Implikasinya harta persendirian boleh diambil secara paksa oleh PBN dengan

menggunakan kuasa yang diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang. Pengambilan harta

persendirian tidak boleh dilakukan kecuali dengan pampasan yang secukupnya.

Rasional bagi pengambilan tanah adalah untuk kepentingan awam lebih

diutamakan. Di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960)

telah mengariskan item-item pampasan yang boleh dibenarkan di dalam membuat

tuntutan dan kebanyakannya telah dirujuk ke mahkamah. Oleh itu adalah

difikirkan perlu diwujudkan sumber rujukan kepada penilai untuk mengkaji jenis-

jenis tuntutan tersebut.

1 Perlembagaan Persekutuan

2

1.2 Penyataan Masalah

Merujuk kepada Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bilangan PT/2/20082 pihak Ibu Pejabat,

Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) mendapati bilangan kes

pengambilan tanah yang dirujuk ke mahkamah semakin meningkat. Disamping

itu, isu-isu yang dibangkitkan semakin rumit. Antaranya adalah seperti isu nilai

pasaran, isu kecederaan dan kerosakan dan isu mengenai pampasan lain.

Bagi memastikan kes penilaian pengambilan tanah yang dirujuk ke mahkamah

dikendalikan dengan sempurna, keputusan kes mahkamah terdahulu perlulah

digunapakai sebagai sumber rujukan.

1.3 Matlamat Kajian

Matlamat utama kajian ini adalah untuk mengumpul keputusan mahkamah

terhadap kes pengambilan tanah yang telah dirujuk ke mahkamah. Pengumpulan

keputusan kes ini adalah penting untuk mengkaji serta menyemak setiap aspek,

perkara dan isu yang berkaitan dengan tuntutan selaras dengan peruntukan Akta

Pengambilan Tanah (1960) .

1.4 Objektif Kajian

Objektif kajian yang hendak dicapai melalui kertas kajian ini adalah untuk

mengkaji keputusan kes pengambilan tanah yang dirujuk ke mahkamah berkaitan

dengan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta

Pengambilan Tanah (1960).

1.5 Soalan Penyelidikan

Bagi menjalankan kajian ini, persoalan penyelidikan adalah seperti berikut:-

a. Apakah isu-isu tuntutan pampasan yang sering dibangkitkan semasa kes

pengambilan tanah dirujuk ke mahmakah?

b. Apakah keputusan kepada isu-isu tuntutan pampasan tersebut yang telah

diputuskan oleh mahkamah?

2 Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bil PT/2/2008 -Rujukan Kes Pengambilan Tanah Ke Mahkamah

3

c. Apakah sumber yang dijadikan rujukan untuk menyelesaikan isu-isu

tuntutan pampasan yang dibangkitkan?

1.6 Kepentingan Kajian

Kepentingan kajian ini diharapkan dapat membantu dan memberi panduan kepada

pegawai yang mengendalikan kes pengambilan tanah mengenai kes-kes yang

telah diputuskan oleh mahkamah berkaitan isu-isu pampasan tertentu.

1.7 Skop Kajian

Kajian ini akan hanya melibatkan kes pengambilan tanah yang mana telah

dirujukan ke mahkamah dan mahkamah telah memberikan keputusan keatas kes

tersebut berdasarkan kepada isu-isu berkaitan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan di-

bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960).

1.8 Limitasi Kajian

Antara limitasi kajian yang dikenalpasti adalah seperti berikut:-

a. Kajian ini adalah merupakan kajian kualitatif sahaja. Oleh itu analisa

terhadap keputusan kes mahkamah akan dijadikan sampel kajian ini.

b. Kajian ini adalah hanya berkaitan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan

berdasarkan peruntukan Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah

(1960).

1.9 Organisasi Kajian

Secara ringkas kajian ini akan terbahagi kepada 5 (lima) bab utama iaitu:-

1.9.1 BAB 1 - Pengenalan

Bab ini akan menyentuh secara kasar tentang pengenalan, pernyataan

masalah, matlamat kajian, objektif dan soalan penyelidikan, kepentingan

kajian, skop dan limitasi.

1.9.2 BAB 2 - Ulasan Literatur

4

Bab ini mengandungi ulasan, bacaan, terma dan istilah yang berkaitan

dengan isu-isu pengambilan tanah di bawah peruntukan Jadual Pertama,

Akta Pengambilan Tanah. (1960).

1.9.3 BAB 3 - Metodologi dan Analisa Kajian

Bab ini akan membincangkan bagaimana kajian yang berdasarkan

pendekatan kualitatif melalui analisis kandungan (content analysis)

dijalankan. Ini adalah dengan membuat analisa terhadap keputusan kes-

kes mahkamah yang telah diputuskan. Sumber ini diperolehi daripada

MLJ, internet, buku-buku, jurnal dan bahan-bahan ilmiah yang lain.

1.9.4 BAB 4 - Penemuan Kajian

Keputusan kes-kes mahkamah yang diperolehi akan dianalisa berdasarkan

fakta kes, isu-isu tuntutan pampasan di bawah Jadual Pertama, Akta

Pengambilan Tanah (1960) dan keputusan mahkamah.

1.9.5 BAB 5 - Cadangan

Bab akhir ini akan merumuskan analisa keatas keputusan kes-kes

mahkamah yang boleh digunapakai sebagai penambahbaikan terhadap

item-item yang dicadangkan bagi pampasan pengambilan tanah

terutamanya yang melibatkan Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan

Tanah (1960) dan sebagai rujukan untuk mengukuhkan bukti keatas

pelarasan yang dibuat dalam menentukan Nilai Pasaran.

5

2.0 BAB 2 : KAJIAN LITERATUR

2.1 Definisi

Beberapa definisi dan terma akan dijelaskan dalam kajian ini yang melibatkan

isu-isu dan prinsip-prinsip di dalam penentuan pampasan di bawah Para 2, Jadual

Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960).

Penilaian adalah satu proses dalam menetapkan nilai berdasarkan maksud-maksud

tertentu keatas suatu hartanah. Bagi pengambilan tanah, penilaian dijalankan bagi

membolehkan pihak berkepentingan memperolehi pampasan yang berpatutan

selain kerosakan dan kerugian yang terpaksa ditanggung akibat pengambilan

tersebut.3

2.2 Definisi Pengambilan Tanah

Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) mendefinasikan pengambilan tanah sebagai satu

tindakan yang diambil oleh PBN untuk mengambilbalik tanah yang telah

diberimilik kepada orang perseorangan, badan atau perbadanan untuk maksud

tujuan awam.

Mengikut kes Hamabai Framjee Petit vs Secretary of State 4, Lordship of Privy

Council telah menerima definisi tujuan awam seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Hakim

Bachelor J:-

“General definition are, I think rather to be avoided where the avoidance is

possible, and I no attempt to define precisely the extent of phrase ‘public purpose’

in the lease; it is enough to say that, in my opinion the phrase, whatever else it

may mean, must include a purpose that is, an objection or aim, in which the

3 Ismail , et al: 2006 4 All Indian Report 1914: pg (20)

6

general interest of community, as opposed the particular interest of individuals, is

directly and vital concerned”….

Manakala di dalam kes S. Kulaisinggan & Anor vs Commission of Land, Faderal

Territory & Ors (Supra)5, Hakim Hashim Yeop A. Sani telah menyatakan “The

expression ‘public purpose’ is incapable of precise definition. No one in fact has

attemped to define is successfully. What all the textbook has done is to suggest the

test to apply in determining whether a purpose is a public purpose. Various test

have been suggested. But in my opinion, it is still best to employ the simple

commonsense test, is that is, to see whether the purpose serves the general

interest of the community”…

Peranan Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) di dalam kes-kes

pengambilan tanah adalah memberikan khidmat nasihat di dalam menentukan

nilai pampasan kepada pihak Kementerian dan Jabatan, Badan Berkanun,

Kerajaan Negeri dan Kerajaan Tempatan. Jika terdapat bantahan keatas pampasan

yang telah diputuskan oleh Pentadbir Tanah dan seterusnya dirujuk ke mahkamah

Pegawai Penilaian mungkin akan dipanggil ke mahkamah sebagai saksi pakar

untuk mepertahankan nilainya. Pegawai Penilaian juga akan dilantik sebagai

pengapit (assessor) untuk membantu hakim di dalam membuat keputusan bagi

menentukan pampasan yang berpatutan dan munasabah.

Berdasarkan kes Ng Tiou Hons vs Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak (1984)6

“anggaran nilaian yang dibuat oleh “expert” (penilai) adalah merupakan suatu

keterangan (evidence) yang tidak diragui, tetapi pertimbangan yang berlebihan

sepatutnya tidak diberi kepadanya melainkan ianya disokong oleh atau

bersamaan dengan keterangan lain”.

5 Malayan Law Journal (MLJ) 6 MLJ 35

7

Perundangan terawal pengambilan tanah di Malaysia bermula sejak zaman

Inggeris menjajah negara ini melalui Enakmen Negeri-Negeri Malayu Bersekutu

Bil. 20 Tahun 1922.7 Setelah beberapa kajian semula dijalankan, perundangan

terdahulu ini dikenali sebagai Enakmen Pengambilan Tanah.8 Selepas negara

mencapai kemerdekaan pada 1957, kerajaan mencadangkan bahawa satu sistem

perundangan berkaitan pengambilan tanah perlu diwujudkan. Sejarah Akta

Pengambilan Tanah (1960) ini bermula apabila Timbalan Perdana Menteri YAB

Tun Abdul Razak Bin Hussin memberi pandangan dan membentangkan rang

undang-undang di Dewan Rakyat pada 12 September 19609. Akta ini telah

melalui beberapa proses pindaan sejak mula ia berkuatkuasa. Pada tahun 1992,

Akta ini telah disemak semula dan ia dikenali sebagai Akta Pengambilan Tanah

1960, Akta 486.

2.3 Definasi Nilai Pasaran

Nilai pasaran adalah suatu kepentingan harta tanah yang diterbitkan dalam bentuk

wang ringgit dengan menjadikan masa sebagai elemen yang penting dan juga

kesediaan seseorang pembeli untuk membeli sesuatu harta tanah tersebut.10

Konsep nilai seperti yang ditafsirkan oleh American Institute of Real Estate

Appraisers sebagaimana yang dipersetujui Mahkamah Amerika Syarikat, iaitu

harga tertinggi yang mampu dihasilkan oleh harta tanah jika dijual di pasaran

terbuka dengan suatu masa yang munasabah diperuntukkan dalam mencari

pembeli berpotensi yang juga pembeli yang munasabah dengan tahap

pengetahuan berkenaan kegunaan sebenar tanah dan juga hak keatas tanah

tersebut. 11

7 Federal Malay State Enactment 8 Enakmen Pengambilan Tanah (FMS Cap 140) 9 The Land Acquisitions Bill 10 Ismail,et al : 2006 11 Norhiaty : 2001

8

Berdasarkan Manual Valuation Standards yang dikeluarkan oleh Lembaga Penilai

Pentaksir dan Agen Harta Tanah, nilai pasaran merupakan amaun yang

dianggarkan untuk pertukaran sesuatu aset pada tarikh nilaian bagi sesuatu

transaksi yang tulen, antara penjual yang rela dan pembeli yang rela setelah aset

berkenaan dipasarkan di pasaran terbuka dalam tempoh yang berpatutan di mana

semua pihak telah bertindak dengan berpengetahuan, bijak dan tanpa paksaan.

A.F. Millington (1982) memberi takrif penilaian sebagai suatu seni dan sains

dalam menganggarkan nilai bagi sesuatu maksud yang tertentu terhadap

kepentingan harta tanah pada suatu tempoh tertentu setelah mengambil kira sifat-

sifat harta tanah dan faktor-faktor ekonomi, pasaran dan pelaburan alternatif.

Manakala seni ialah pembentukan pendapat terhadap nilai yang dilakukan oleh

penilai manakala sains pula ialah kefahaman atau kaedah dalam memberi

pendapat tentang sesuatu.

2.4 Prinsip Penentuan Pampasan

Dalam konteks penilaian pengambilan tanah ianya didefinasikan sebagai satu

prinsip yang perlu diikuti adalah sesuatu jumlah wang yang akan diperolehi oleh

pemilik harta sekiranya tanah tersebut dijual di pasaran terbuka dan juga

mengambilkira kerugian-kerugian yang timbul akibat pengambilan tersebut.12

Terma prinsip penentuan pampasan ini tidak dinyatakan secara jelas di dalam

sistem perundangan tetapi terma ini hanya akan diperolehi daripada kajian

terdahulu di mana suatu jumlah wang perlu dibayar kepada pemilik yang diambil

balik tanahnya. 13

Prinsip penentuan pampasan berdasarkan kepada suatu kes mahkamah di England

iaitu Ricket vs Metropolitan Rail Co (1867), di mana pampasan adalah sesuatu

jumlah yang diperlukan untuk meletakkan seseorang pemilik dalam keadaan

sepertimana harta tanahnya tidak diambil. Prinsip ini dikatakan sebagai Prinsip

Kesetaraan. 14

12 Anuar & Nasir : 2006 13 (Rowan-Robinsonson & Brand : 1995 dan Brown : 1991). 14 Principle of Acquivalence: (Jain, Xavier & Usilappan : 1997), (Teo & Khaw : 1995) dan (Cruden : 1986)

9

Kajian Anuar & Nasir (2006) di mana telah mengemukakan sebanyak 90 sampel

soalselidik kepada penilai-penilai yang terlibat di dalam kes pengambilan tanah.

Didapati bahawa terdapat persetujuan umum tentang kepentingan nilai pasaran

sepertimana di dalam Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) namun tidak dinyatakan

secara terperinci apakah faktor-faktor lain yang boleh dipertimbangkan sebagai

penentuan pampasan.

Berdasarkan kepada Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960)

menyatakan bahawa di dalam penentuan pampasan yang akan diberikan bagi

mana-mana tanah yang dijadualkan akan diambil hendaklah mengambilkira

perkara-perkara berikut:-

a) Nilai pasaran sepertimana diperuntukkan di bawah Seksyen 1, Jadual

Pertama. 15

b) Apa-apa kenaikan pada nilai tanah yang lain yang mungkin terakru kepada

tanah-tanah lain yang dimiliki oleh orang yang berkepentingan disebabkan

penggunaan kepada tanah yang diambil;

c) Kerosakan, jika ada yang ditanggung atau mungkin ditanggung oleh orang

yang berkepentingan disebabkan oleh pemisahan tanah yang diambil itu

daripada tanah yang lain;

d) Kerosakan jika ada, yang ditanggung atau mungkin ditanggung oleh orang

yang berkepentingan disebabkan oleh pengambilan itu telah menyebabkan

kesan mudarat pada hartanya yang lain;

e) Jika disebabkan pengambilan, ia terpaksa berpindah rumah atau tempat

perniagaannya, perbelanjaan yang berkaitan yang ditanggung olehnya: dan

f) Di mana hanya sebahagian daripada tanah telah diambil, mana-mana

akujanji oleh pihak berkuasa untuk membina jalan, parit, tembok, pagar

atau lain-lain kemudahan yang memberi munafaat kepada bahagian tanah

yang diambil, dengan syarat bahawa akujanji itu jelas dan dikuatkuasakan.

15 Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960)

10

Pampasan keatas kerosakan kekal yang berlaku akibat pengambilan tanah telah

dibincangkan dengan jelasnya di dalam kes Pemungut Hasil Tanah vs Looi Lam

di mana tuntutan kerosakan kekal perlu dibuat bersekali dengan tuntutan nilai

pasaran mengikut Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) dan semasa siasatan

dijalankan dan bukannya dijalankan secara berasingan.

Kajian oleh William Britton, Keith Davies & Tony Johnson (1989) telah

mengenalpasti item-item pampasan selain dari nilai tanah. Antaranya adalah

seperti berikut:-

a) Pecah pisah (severence).

b) Kerosakan kekal (injurious affection).

c) Kecederaan lain yang mungkin timbul (disturbance) seperti:-

i) Kacauganggu dan kehilangan hak sebagai pemilik atau penyewa

- Termasuk bayaran akibat jualan stok secara paksa.

- Kos pengakutan dan perpindahan.

- Kos lain yang timbul daripada perpindahan.

- Goodwill.

ii) Kerosakan semasa tempoh pembinaan.

d) Kerja-kerja akomodasi.

e) Gantian sewaan.

Manakala Fricke (1982) juga telah mengkaji item-item kacauganggu lain

sepertimana berikut:-

a) Kos perpindahan, termasuk insuran.

b) Susutnilai atau kerosakan yang mungkin timbul semasa perpindahan stok,

loji dan jentera, peralatan dan barangan perniagaan akibat pengambilan

tanah.

c) Pemasangan semula mesin jentera.

d) Nilai barangan tidak alih.

11

e) Kos insiden lain selepas pengambilan seperti pengiklanan, perubahan

alamat dan gantian peralatan perniagaan.

f) Kehilangan pendapatan sepanjang tempoh perpindahan dan juga di masa

memulakan perniagaan dilokasi baru.

g) Kerugian tanaman yang sedang membesar tetapi tidak dimasukkan di-

dalam nilai tanah.

h) Kerugian akibat jualan paksa stok, loji jentera, peralatan dan barangan

perniagaan.

i) Kos perberhentian pekerja.

j) Kos pemyimpanan barang.

k) Kos mengoperasikan dua premis pada satu masa.

l) Kos pengubahsuaian bangunan perniagaan baru.

m) Sewa dan cukai yang perlu dibayar di premis baru.

n) Peningkatan kos operasi di premis baru.

o) Peningkatan kos pengakutan dan masa perjalanan.

p) Kerugian semasa membuat tuntutan di dalam mencari premis baru dan

semasa berpindah.

q) Kos tambahan atas minyak dan petrol.

r) Kos-kos konsultansi lain yang terlibat.

s) Bayaran ejen di dalam perkhidmatan memcari premis baru.

t) Kos menyelesaikan pinjaman lama dan mendapatkan pinjaman baru.

u) Kos perundangan dan duti setem atas pembelian premis alternatif.

Secara kesimpulannya kajian-kajian yang telah dinyatakan di atas adalah

bertepatan dengan peruntukan perundangan yang telah dipraktiskan selama ini

sebagaimana digariskan di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan

Tanah (1960) iaitu :-

* Perkara 2 (a) - Nilai pasaran tanah dan bangunan

* Perkara 2 (b) – Naik nilai (betterment)

* Perkara 2 (c) - Pecah pisah (severance)

* Perkara 2 (d) - Kerosakan kekal (injurious affection)

* Perkara 2 (e) - Kacauganggu (disturbance)

12

* Perkara 2 (f) - Kerja-kerja akomodasi (gantian semula)

Peruntukan di dalam Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) telah menyediakan ruang

yang cukup tentang item-item tuntutan pampasan yang dibolehkan di dalam

membuat tuntutan. Namun begitu bagaimanakah setiap tuntutan itu dipenuhi dan

apakah terma rujukan yang telah digunapakai oleh hakim yang membuat

keputusan? Adakah berdasarkan kes-kes mahmakah yang telah diputuskan

sebelum ini diambilkira? Penelitian keatas keputusan kes-kes mahkamah

berkaitan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta

Pengambilan Tanah (1960) akan menjawap persoalan tersebut.

13

3.0 BAB 3 : METODOLOGI KAJIAN

3.1 Pendekatan Kajian

Pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan kualitatif melalui analisis

kandungan (content analysis). Pendekatan analisis kandungan adalah dengan

membuat analisa keputusan mahkamah yang berkaitan kes pengambilan tanah

yang telah dirujuk ke mahkamah dan keputusan telah diberikan. Bagi mencapai

tujuan ini, penyelidik akan membincangkan isu-isu pampasan yang dibangkitkan

serta mengulas keputusan mahkamah terhadap isu-isu tersebut.

Penyelidik juga akan mengenalpasti, menganalisa, makna dan hubungan antara

perkataan dan konsep dan akan cuba mengaitkannya dengan objektif yang hendak

dicapai. Untuk menjalankan penyelidikan ini, penyelidik akan membahagikan

setiap kes mahkamah ini kepada beberapa bahagaian. Antaranya adalah seperti

berikut:-

i) Fakta Kes

ii) Masalah/ Isu

iii) Keputusan mahkamah

Rasional content analysis digunapakai dalam kajian ini adalah kerana terdapat

pelbagai maklumat dalam setiap kes yang dirujuk. Dengan menggunakan borang

semakan data, penyelidik akan dapat membuat catatan dan panduan di dalam

menentukan apakah maklumat-maklumat yang ingin diperolehi daripada setiap

sampel kajian. Dengan cara ini setiap item tuntutan boleh dikenalpasti diperingkat

awal lagi. Ini akan memudahkan proses analisa data dijalankan.

3.2 Persempelan

Persempelan kajian ini adalah merupakan kes-kes mahkamah yang telah dirujuk

dan telah digunapakai di dalam penentuan pampasan. Bilangan persampelan

adalah tidak terhad dan bergantung kepada isu-isu pampasan dan fakta kes.

14

3.3 Penemuan Kajian dan Laporan

Penemuan kajian akan diterjemahkan di dalam bentuk laporan. Analisis terperinci

setiap isu-isu pampasan akan dijalankan bagi menjawab objektif kajian iaitu

mengkaji keputusan mahkamah berkaitan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan di-

bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960).

15

4.0 BAB 4 : RUJUKAN KES MAHKAMAH

4.1 Kes Mahkamah Berkaitan Nilai Pasaran : Pekara 2 (a), Para 2, Jadual

Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960.

4.1.1 Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd lwn Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kinta

[2004] 6 MLJ 157, Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh – Rujukan Tanah No. 15-7-1994,

Mokhtar Sidin MHR

Fakta Kes:

Kadar nilai pasaran untuk pampasan samada pampasan yang diberi lebih

rendah daripada kadar pasaran semasa.

Isu :

Pemohon di dalam kes ini adalah pemilik 2 lot tanah yang telah

diwartakan untuk tujuan pengambilan sepenuhnya bagi membangunkan

satu kawasan perumahan dan pusat komersial pada 21 Januari 1993. Satu

plot tanah ditanami dengan pokok getah tua dan tidak dijaga atau ditoreh,

manakala satu lagi plot terdapat 4 unit rumah teres buruk yang tidak

didiami serta bangunan untuk memproses susu getah yang juga telah

usang. Semasa pengambilan balik tidak ada permohonan dibuat untuk

memajukan tanah. Siasatan telah dijalankan oleh responden di- mana

responden telah memberikan pampasan pada kadar RM90,000 sehektar

untuk Lot 25459 manakala bagi Lot 56626 pula pampasan yang telah

diberikan oleh responden adalah RM215,000 sehektar. Pemohon tidak

berpuas hati dengan pampasan yang telah diberikan bagi Lot 25459 dan

telah memohon rujukan dibuat ke mahmakah di atas alasan pampasan

yang telah diberikan itu adalah rendah daripada kadar nilai pasaran

semasa.

16

Keputusan Mahmakah :

Diputuskan untuk menolak permohonan kerana tarikh untuk menentukan

kadar nilai pasaran semasa tersebut bagi memberikan pampasan di atas

pengambilan balik tanah terlibat adalah tarikh pengambilan ini

diwartakan.

Prinsip Pampasan :

Berdasarkan kepada keterangan Mokhtar Sidin JCA, prinsip penetuan

pampasan kepada kes pengambilan tanah terdapat di dalam Jadual

Pertama kepada Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (Akta 486) di mana

dinyatakan bahawa pampasan hendaklah mengikut harga pasaran (market

value) tanah tersebut semasa tanah itu digezetkan untuk diambil.

Pengertian harga pasaran ini telah dihuraikan dengan panjang lebar di

dalam kes Ng Tiou Hong vs Collector of Land Revenue Gombak [1984] 2

MLJ 35, iaitu satu keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Bagi tanah-tanah ladang pula, sebagaimana yang terdapat di dalam

permohonan ini, beberapa fakta patut dipertimbangkan untuk

mendapatkan harga pasaran itu. Perkara utama ialah perbandingan

hendaklah dibuat dengan transaksi tanah-tanah ladang yang lain yang

berlaku dikawasan tanah terlibat dan mempunyai kedudukan, rupabumi

dan keadaan tanah yang sama.

4.1.2 Siah Brother Plantation Sdn Bhd lwn Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuantan

[1993] 3 MLJ 51, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuantan – Rujukan Tanah No. 15-4

Tahun 1986, Dato’ Lamin H

Fakta Kes :

Penentuan nilai pasaran perlu berasaskan kepada jualan perbandingan

dengan mengambilkira pelbagai faktor seperti masa, saiz tanah,

17

kedudukan tanah, jenis tanaman dan bentuk rupabumi yang sama dengan

tanah dijadualkan. Ini kerana jika tidak banyak pelarasan adalah lebih

mudah, lebih munasabah dan lebih tepat perkiraan dapat dibuat untuk

penentuan nilai pasaran.

Isu :

Pengambilan sebahagian tanah seluas 18.58 ekar bagi Lot 2685 di Mukim

Kuantan, Daerah Kuantan, Pahang. Luas tanah dijadualkan 498.70 ekar

dan merupakan satu daripada tiga lot tanah ladang yang bercantum

dikenali sebagai Valentia Estete. Luas keseluruhan estate tersebut adalah

1,040.63 ekar. Pengambilan ini diwartakan pada 20 Jun 1985. Tujuan

pengambilan adalah untuk penggunaan paip gas Petronas.

Amaun pampasan yang diberikan oleh Pentadbir Tanah Kuantan, selepas

siasatan adalah sebanyak RM8,900 seekar. Pihak perayu tidak berpuas hati

dengan amaun pampasan nilai pasaran dimana memohon tanah

dijadualkan itu dinilai berasaskan RM25,000 seekar.

Keputusan Mahkamah :

Di dalam alasan penghakimannya, hakim yang arif berpendapat bahawa

ketiga-tiga perbandingan yang digunakan oleh pihak perayu adalah tidak

sesuai untuk perbandingan kerana perbezaan saiz. Luas lot perbandingan

yang digunakan adalah kurang daripada 50 ekar sedangkan luas tanah

dijadualkan adalah 489.70 ekar.

Daripada aspek lokasi pula, penilai pihak responden telah mengemukakan

jarak lot-lot perbandingan dengan tanah dijadualkan adalah hampir sama.

Sebagai contoh Ladang Syarikat Kurnia Setia dan Ladang Jeram terletak

13km dariapda Pusat Bandar Kuantan, manakala tanah terjadual terletak

16km daripada Pusat Bandar Kuantan.

18

Disamping itu juga, ketiga-tiga tanah estet ini bermukakan jalan utama

iaitu Ladang Syarikat Kurnia Setia ianya bermukakan Jalan Sungai

Lembing/Kuantan Bypass, iaitu menghala Kuala Terengganu dan bagi

Ladang Jeram, ianya bermukakan Kuantan Bypass. Tanah dijadualkan

pula bermukakan Jalan Gambang.

Lot-lot perbandingan dan tanah dijadualkan terletak berhampiran dengan

kawasan pembangunan terancang dan menikmati kemudahan pengakutan.

Lot-lot perpandingan ini bersempadanan dengan Bandar Indera Mahkota

dan kawasan perindustrian Semambu, manakala tanah dijadualkan terletak

berhampiran Bandar Jaya Gading.

Lot-lot perbandingan pihak responden dan tanah dijadualkan telah

dinilaikan dan diberi pampasan untuk tujuan yang sama iaitu pembinaan

paip gas dan dari segi masa, tarikh pengambilan balik juga adalah sama,

iaitu 20 Jun 1985, sedangkan lot perbandingan penilai perayu telah dijual

beberapa tahun sebelum tarikh pengambilan balik dijadualkan oleh

kerajaan iaitu sekitar tahun 1981- 1983.

Prinsip Pampasan :

Didalam kes hakim yang arif telah memberikan perhitungan yang

sewajarnya kepada semua keadaan seperti kedudukan tanah dan kawasan

sekiranya, saiz, rupabumi, jenis tanaman dan potensi pembangunan di

dalam menentukan award pampasan.

4.1.3 Abdul Majid Bin Baba & Another vs Collector of Land Revenue,

Jasin, High Court, Malacca, Land Reference No. 4 of 1980, Judge: Wan

Yahya bin Pawan Teh, Date : 24/2/1981

Facts of the Case:

A portion of land having an area of 26 poles (0.1625 acres) belonging to

the plaintiff was acquired. The land was acquired by the government under

19

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 and was gazetted under G.N.

No. 59, dated 2.3.1978. The Collector assessed the value of the acquired

land at the rate of $7,000 per acre.

Issue:

The determination of market value.

Court’s Decision:

The learned judge concluded that as at 2.3.1978, the fair market value of

the acquired land was $10,000 per acre. The Collector had to pay the

difference of $3,000 per acre and interest on the excess of compensation

awarded at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date on which he took

possession of the land, i.e, 2.3.1978, to the date of payment of such excess.

4.1.4 A.K.A.C.T.V. Alagappa Chettiar vs Collector of Land Revenue,

Kuala Lumpur, Federal Court, Kuala Lumpur, Reference: Civil Appeal

No. X. 24 of 1967, Judges: Ong Hock Thye, Raja Azlan Shah, Pawan

Ahmad Date: 20/02/1968, Keywords: Market value, principles of

determining compensation, undivided share, potentiality of land.

Facts of the Case:

A parcel of land measuring 22.763 acres (991, 730 square feet) was

acquired by the Selangor State Government on 4.6.1964 for housing

purposes. The appellant claimed $12.00 per sq. ft. The award by the

Collector was at $3.00 per sq. ft. The High Court held that the Collector’s

award had no error or omission in the facts relied on or the inferences

derived there from. The Collector had taken into account a number of

factors but the most salient one was the previous sale of half-share of the

land in question which took place only seven months before acquisition,

the purchase price being $2.20 per sq. ft. The High Court upheld the

government valuer’s opinion that the earlier sale price of the land itself

was the true “keystone”.

20

Court’s Decision:

In the opinion of the learned judge “the fundamental rule is that the

property under acquisition has been recently purchased, the price paid is

prima facie the market value thereof”. The appellant said that the previous

sale price by itself afforded no absolute criterion. It could not be

considered in isolation, without taking into account relevant circumstances

under which that sale took place. The appellant claimed that the price at

$2.20 per sq. ft. had been a bargain price well below market value as the

seller.

At the High Court, the learned judge:-

a) discounted in toto the evidence of both Alagappa and Palaniappa

that Devarayan sold at a disadvantage for personal reasons,

b) rejected in to the appellant’s valuation report on the ground that the

prices paid on sales of lands not in the immediate vicinity of the

land acquired were “wholly irrelevant” and “must be disregarded”.

c) discussed the potentialities of the land but dismissed them,

d) dismissed the appellant’s contention that the sale price of an

undivided partial interest in land afforded no true criterion of

market value when assessing the price of the whole interest in the

same land.

4.1.5 Bertam Consolidated Rubber Co. Ltd. vs Pemungut Hasil Tanah,

Seberang Perai Utara, Butterworth.

High Court, Penang, Reference: Land Reference No. 15-9-82, Judge:

Edgar Joseph Jr, Date: 31/12/1988, Keyword: Fair market value,

principles of determining compensation, Section 214A, National Land

Code 1965, claim for severance and injurious affection.

Facts of the Case:

A piece of land measuring 32.2841 acres, which was part of Bertam

Estate, was compulsorily acquired under Section 8 of Land Acquisition

21

Act 1960 on 13.9.1979 for a public road. Bertam Estate was

approximately 5,000 acres and was planted with oil palms. At the inquiry

on 22.10.1980, the plaintiff claimed $1,314,090.00 based on their private

valuer’s report. On 17.12.1981 the Collector offered $639,994.05 as full

compensation for the land acquired and for severance and injury. The

plaintiff objected and referred the matter to Court.

Issues:

The matters raised for determination before the court were numerous:-

a) What the fair market value of the land acquired was at the material

date.

b) What the appropriate sum to award for injurious affection was.

c) With regards to surface drainage, whether the Court should require the

State Government of Penang or the Drainage and Irrigation

Department to give an undertaking or, in default, order an appropriate

compensation award or make an appropriate order in lieu of the

undertaking.

d) What was the appropriate sum to award for consequential loss of

crops, cost of new drains and fencing, cost of alternative road,

insurance and recoupment of fees paid by the plaintiff.

e) What other reliefs, if any should be awarded in favour to the plaintiff.

MAIN MENU CONTENTS

Court’s Decisions:

The three recognized methods of valuation under compulsory acquisition

were:-

a. the opinion of expert valuers;

b. the price paid, within a reasonable time, in bona fide transactions of

purchases of the land acquired, or of the lands adjacent to the land

acquired and possessing similar advantages; and

c. a certain number of years purchase of the actual or immediately

prospective profit from the lands acquired.”

22

The most reliable guide in determining fair market value was evidence of

sale of the same or similar land in the neighborhood, due allowance

having been made for the particular circumstances of each cases.

Matters that should be taken into account:-

“There is explicit statutory provision that in assessing compensation for

severance and injurious affection, the Court must take into consideration

not only damages actually sustained by the owner but also damages to be

so sustained at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land by

reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, whether

movable or immovable, in any other manner: para 2(d) of the First

Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act.”

The Court awarded the following:-

a. For the loss of the acquired land, the Collector’s award of

$322,272 was increased by 20% to $383,503.96.

b. For severance and injurious affection:-

• cost of new drains $27,200 (or reimbursement of all expenses

reasonably incurred and properly substantiated for the maintenance

of the branch drains to ensure a smooth flow of water and waste in

the main drains thus preventing any flooding and damage to crops

on the remaining unacquired lands of Bertam Estate)

• cost of new fencing for the manager’s bungalow $4,700

• cost of new fencing for the rest of the Estate $13,728

c. Interest at 8% per annum on the sum awarded which was in excess

of that awarded by the Collector from the date of possession,

21/2/1980, to the date of payment.

d. Reimbursement of fees paid to valuer and engineer, provided that

they had been reasonably incurred and properly substantiated.

23

4.1.6 Bukit Rajah Rubber Co. Ltd. vs Collector of Land Revenue, Klang

High Court, Kuala Lumpur, Reference: Civil Application No. 2 of 1966,

Judge: Raja Azlan Shah, Date: 12/10/1967, Keywords: Market value,

potential value, method of valuation.

Facts of the Case:

The Collector’s award was $2,400 per acre while the plaintiff claimed

$8,400 per acre. Both the plaintiff’s valuer and the Government valuer

used the investment method in arriving at their valuations. The

Government valuer first assessed the agricultural value using investment

method and arrived at $1,400 per acre and added to this $1,000 per acre

for the potentiality of the land.

Issues:

The determination of the basis market value under the Act. The likelihood

of potential value to be considered together with existing value. The

principle method of valuation to be adopted in arriving at a fair market

value.

Court’s Decision:

1. Basic of market value:-

“…the market value must be based on a rational enquiry of the value of

the property to the owner which is an objective assessment of all the

surrounding circumstances. Ordinarily, the objective assessment would be

the price that an owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably

expect to obtain from a willing purchaser with whom he has was

bargaining for the sale of the land”.

2. Potential value:-

24

“The property must be valued not only with reference to its condition at

the time of the acquisition but also its potential development value. In the

light of these observations, I take the view that the proper method to arrive

at a fair market value of the land acquired, taking all relevant

considerations, is to assess its existing value with its inseparably essential

element, i.e. its potential development value”.

3. Method of valuation: -

“In my opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the

method to be adopted for assessing the proper market value of the land

acquired. In the last analysis each case must be considered in the light of

its special features”.

4. The learned judge however found that the sales cited by both

parties were not fully comparable to the land acquired, but were accepted

as a guide to the market conditions at the time of acquisition. The Court

resorted to the investment method to arrive at the award of $4,022 per

acre. This value was arrived at by taking into consideration the average

annual yield per acre of the estate. A figure of 1,000 pounds was seen as

reasonable. As the income was an immediate and assured income, the

Court gave a capitalisation rate of 7 ½ % (remunerative rate).

4.1.7 Chan Seow Choo, Lim Chee Seong @ Lim Chee Seang, Lim Chee

Beng, Lim Chee Cheng and Lim Chee Thuan vs Pentadbir Tanah

Daerah, Seberang Perai Tengah, Pulau Pinang, High Court, Pulau

Pinang, Land Reference No. 15-11-92, Judge: Haji Mokhtar bin Haji

Sidin, Date: 17/2/1997, Keywords: Estate land, small-holdings, Section

214A of the National Land Code.

Facts of the Case:

The scheduled land, lot 722, Mukim 13, Derah Seberang Perai Tengah,

was acquired for the purpose of ‘ development and industry’ under

25

Gazette Notification dated 6.6.1991. The lot had an area of 145.9721 acres

and was an estate planted with oil palm and rubber trees. The Collector

awarded RM40,000.00 per acre whilst the plaintiff claimed $2.00 per sq.

ft. The plaintiff relied on 2 sales comprising of many small lots, the total

areas of which were 45.86 acres and 25.28 acres.

Issues:

The plaintiff challenged the adequacy of the award. In determining the

market value of estate land, what comparables might be used and what

might not be used.

Court’s Decisions:

1. Comparables in vicinity to be used when valuing estate lands.

“Oleh kerana tanah terlibat adalah tanah ladang maka perbandingan yang

sewajarnya hendaklah ke atas transaksi tanah-tanah ladang di sekitar

kawasan itu atau berhampiran dengan tanah terlibat.”

2. Sales of small-holdings could not be used to value estate lands.

“Sebagaimana yang telah saya nyatakan di atas penilai pemohon hanya

mengemukakan dua perbandingan. Kedua-dua pebandingan ini merupakan

tanah-tanah kecil dan bukannya tanah ladang. Saya telah menolak

perbandingan-perbandingan ini dan juga perbandingan tanah-tanah lot

kecil yang telah dikemukakan oleh penilai responden kerana jenis tanah

yang berlainan. Sebagaimanan yang diketahui umum untuk penjualan

tanah ladang ia memerlukan kelulusan di bawah sek. 214A Kanun Tanah

Negara.”

MAIN MENU CONTENTS

3. The Court was of the opinion that the award made by the Collector

was fair and adequate and concurred with the Collector’s award.

26

4.1.8 Chin Kee Onn vs Collector of Land Revenue, Seremban, Supreme

Court, Kuala Lumpur, Reference: No. 1 of 1958, Date: 18/3/1959,

Keywords: Potential value, adequancy of market value.

Facts of the Case:

The said acquisition was for an extension to the Mantin Malay School. An

area of 1 acre 0 rood 21.8 poles was acquired. The land was located

approximately 2 chains to the south of the Seremban-Kuala Lumpur main

road at the 11 ¼ milestone from Seremban. The Collector awarded

$1,136.25 for the land, based on rubber land value. The appellant’s

licensed appraiser valued the land at $3,220.00 in view of building

potential.

Issues:

Determination of market value as the compensation was deemed

inadequate by the appellant. The appellant contended that the acquired

land had building potential since it was located near the Mantin Town

Board boundary which was now becoming a good residential area.

Court’s Decision:

1. The learned judge was of the opinion that the value of the land

should not be valued on existing use but should also consider the

likelihood of securing a charge of use in the future.

…….“I am aware that the land is at present held under agricultural title

but nevertheless the steady expansion of the Town Board area there would

be no difficulty in securing a change of conditions….”

2. The Court increased the award by $500.00 in respect of the

building potential of the land. Total award in respect of the land was

$1,636.25.

27

4.1.9 Anggun Gemilang Sdn. Bhd. vs Pentadbir Daerah dan Tanah, Kuala

Kangsar, High Court, Taiping, Land Reference No: 15-7-95 (T), Judge:

Hj. Mokhtar Hj. Sidin, Date: 12/1/1998, Keyword: Market Value,

evidence of value, onus of proof.

Facts of the Case:

The owner had four pieces of land, Lots 530, 531, 1235 and 1311, which

were acquired on 27.4.1995 for the development of an MIEL industrial

area in the Kuala Kangsar Industrial Estate. The acquired land was an

agricultural land and was undeveloped at the time of acquisition. The

plaintiff had sent three applications for converting and developing the area

including the acquired portion. But these applications were refused, except

for lot 2343, which was approved. The Collector awarded compensation as

follows:-

Lot 530 - RM79,800.00

Lot 531 - RM90,720.00

Lot 1235 - RM62,310.00

Lot 1311 - RM82,410.00

Issue:

The plaintiff contended that the award should be increased. Based on his

experience as a developer land approved for industrial areas before the

payments of premium and amalgamation and subdivision fees could fetch

a value from RM80,000.00 to RM100,000.00 per acre. The acquired land

had industrial potential.

Court’s Decision:

The learned judge held that the principle for compensation should be

based on the Land Acquisition Act 1960 whereby the compensation

should be the market value. Market value was defined in the case of Ng

Tiou Hong v. Collector of Land Revenue Gombak (1984).

28

The learned judge was satisfied with the compensation awarded by the

Collector as it fulfilled the definition of market value. The learned judge

held that the plaintiff did not provide evidence to show that the

respondent’s compensation was inadequate. The onus of proof on the

adequacy of compensation rested on the plaintiff.

There are of course other principles that have to be applied according to

the facts and circumstances of a particular case along the lines provided by

the First Schedule to the Act and as decided from time to time by the

courts. We consider the following as main principles:-

Firstly, market value means the compensation that must be determined by

reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expert to

obtain from a willing purchaser. The elements of unwillingness or

sentimental value on the part of the vendor to part with the land and the

urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy have to be disregarded and cannot

be made a basic for increasing the market value. It must be treated on the

willingness of both the vendor to sell and the purchaser to buy at the

market price without the element of compulsion.

Secondly, the market prices can be measured by a consideration of prices

of sales of similar lands in the neighbour potentialities must be taken into

account.

The nature of the land and the use to which it is being put at the time of

acquisition have to be taken into account together with the likelihood to

which it is reasonably capable of being put to use in the future e.g. the

possibility of it being put to use in the future for building or other

developments.

Fourthly, in considering the nature of the land regard must be given as to

whether its locality is within or near developed area, its distance to or from

a town, availability of access road to and within it or presence of a road

29

reserve indicating a likelihood of access to be constructed in the near

future, expenses that would likely to be incurred in leveling the surface

and the like.

Fifthly, estimates of value by experts are undoubtedly, some evidence but

too much weight should not be given unless it is supported by, or

coincides with other evidence.

The safest guide is evidence of sales of similar lands of similar quality or

position in the locality at the prior to the time of acquisition. The prices

paid for such sales can be used as comparables subject to making

allowances for all circumstances.

4.1.10 Guan Seng Co. Ltd. Taiping vs Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Larut Dan

Matang, Taiping, High Court, Taiping, Land Reference No. 15-4-92,

Judge: Abdul Malik Ishak, Date: 5/10/1993, Keywords: Inadequate

compensation, method of valuation, market value, onus of proof, valuation

of land as a whole.

Facts of the Case:

The acquisition involved two adjacent lots, namely, lots 142 and 771,

Mukim Kamunting, Taiping. The declaration under Section 8 of the Land

Acquisition Act 1960 was dated 11.5.1989. Portions of both lots were

compulsorily acquired by the State Government of Perak for the

construction of a pond for a project to supply water to Kerian, Larut and

Matang II. The land administrator awarded RM12,230 and RM28,090 for

the scheduled lands, respectively, after considering the reports from both

the government and private valuers. The plaintiff claimed that the award

was inadequate and brought the matter to Court.

30

Issues:

The inadequacy of compensation that was awarded and determination of

fair market value.

Court’s Decision:

1. It was trite law that the scheduled lands were to be valued as a

whole as the Land Acquisition Act 1960 provided that where only part of

a parcel of land was acquired, the remaining part of the land which was

not acquired must necessarily be considered for the purpose determining

market value. It would, therefore, be in order to value the scheduled lands

in lots 142 and 771 as a single unit, more so as they were gazetted for

acquisition on the same day and bore the same government gazette

number and it was the date of publication of the declaration in the

government gazette under Section 8 of the Act which was material for the

purpose of determining fair market value.

2. The plaintiff had to prove that the award of the land administrator

was inadequate. If he failed to do so, the award of the land administrator

stood. But if he succeeded in adducing 12 prima facie evidences, then the

land administrator had to support the award by producing credible

evidence.

3. The comparison method appeared to be the best method of

valuation where the real market value could be arrived at by gathering

evidence of sales of similar lands of similar quality or position in the

locality of the acquired land at or prior to the time of acquisition. It was

the compensation that could be derived at by reference to the price which

a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing

purchaser and this was what was meant by market value.

The comparison method was accepted and the government valuer had

applied the correct principles in evaluating the market value of the

scheduled lands.

31

4.1.11 Hock Bean Bee Rice Mill Ltd. vs Commissioner of Lands & Mines,

Perlis, High Court, Alor Setar, Land Reference: No. 5 of 1959, Judge:

Syed Sheh Barakbah, Date: 4/7/1960, Keywords: Compensation, market

value, expert opinion, evidence of similar surrounding land sales, Perlis

Land Acquisition (Extension to Perlis), Enactment of 1958, FMS Land

Acquisition Enactment, offers.

Facts of the Case:

This was an application against the compensation awarded by the

Commissioner of Lands and Mines, Perlis for the acquisition of a piece of

land, lot 11, Mukim Kuala Perlis. The acquired land with an area of 2

relongs 397 jembas was planted with paddy. It had a frontage onto Jalan

Kuala Perlis and was located within the council area. Determination of

market value as at 20.8.1959 was based on Section 29(1)(a) of the Perlis

Land Acquisition (Extension to Perlis) Enactment of 1958, where ‘market

value’ was not defined.

Issues:

1. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the compensation awarded at $1,700

per relong.

2. The land could be converted into 18 shoplots.

3. Should offer to purchase the land form the basis of comparison.

Court’s Decisions:

1. The court held that there was no effort made to convert the land

into shop use. However, the learned judge had considered the location of

the land within the Town Board area and the possibilities of converting

into shops. Based on these factors the value of the land was increased from

$1,700 per relong to $2,000 per relong.

2. The court held that the opinion of an expert witness should be

supported by evidences, as in Nanyang Manufacturing Co. vs The

Collector of Land Revenue Johore, Buhagiar J. stated “With regard to

32

evidence of experts I adopt the view expressed in the above mentioned

case, at page 877 (Harish Chunder Meogy v. Secretary of State II C.W.N.

876) that ‘estimates are undoubtedly some evidence but their value is not

great, as expert opinion is liable to err, unless it is supported by, or

coincides with, other evidence’.”

NTEN 3. The Court rejected evidence based on offers.

4. The plaintiff was compensated at $2,000 per relong and was paid

$5,640 as total compensation. There was no order as to costs.

4.1.12 Hoe Guan Investment vs Collector of Land Revenue, Batu Pahat

High Court, Johore Bahru, Land Reference No. 1 of 1975, Judge: Ajaib

Singh, Keywords: Market value, inadequacy of award, onus of proof,

method of valuation.

Facts of the Case:

The land acquired was Lot 4723 C.T. 3725 having an area of 576 acres 3

roods. The acquired portion itself represented only a small portion of the

said lot, at 2 acres 1 rood 28 poles. A notice in Form A under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was gazetted on 10.5.1973 followed by a

declaration of intended acquisition under Section 8 dated 28.3.1974.

Market value was to be determined at 10.5.1973.

The acquired land was situated about 1¼ mile from the centre of Batu

Pahat town. It was facing the highway from Muar to Ayer Hitam via Batu

Pahat. At the rear was a one way road to Jalan Pasir Tinggi. The land was

vacant except for a few coconut trees and had not been developed yet

because it was not considered suitable for development. The Collector

held an enquiry on 4.5.1974. At the enquiry the plaintiff valued the

acquired land at $4.50 per sq. ft. On 28.9.1974 the Collector made an

award of $1.30 per sq. ft.

33

Issues:

1. The plaintiff claimed that the Collector’s award of $1.30 per sq. ft. was

below the market value of the land prevailing at the relevant date.

2. The Collector had failed to provide for the physical characteristics of

the land in terms of the location and size in comparison with the sale he

had compared with.

Court’s Decision:

1. The party who objected to the award on the ground of inadequacy

had to show prima facie that such an award was inadequate and thereupon

it was for the Collector to support his award based on such evidence as he

might have to offer. The learned judge quoted Broomfield J. in Assistant

Development Officer, Bombay vs Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori:

…….“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.”

MAIN MENU 2. “Market value” was not defined in the Land Acquisition Act 1960,

but had been judicially defined and the most favoured being “the price that

an owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain

from a willing purchaser with whom he was bargaining for the sale and

purchase of the land.”

3. The generally recognised methods of ascertaining market value

were:-

i. by considering the purchase price of bona fide transactions of the

same land or part of the same land as is acquired or of lands

adjoining the land acquired, within a reasonable time in relation to

the relevant date of acquisition, and having more or less similar

advantages as that of the land acquired;

ii. by the number of years purchase of the profit from the land

acquired, and

34

iii. on the evidence of expert land valuers.”

4. The Court viewed the Collector’s award of $1.30 per sq. ft. as on

the low side. In arriving at the market value of the land, the Court adopted

3 comparables, namely lots 5238, 5241 and 3273. After much

deliberations at various factors pertaining to the lots, lot 3273 was

considered a better indicator of market value. It was sold at $1.80 per sq.

ft. about 10 months after the relevant date at the time when the trend in the

increase of the land values was much higher than at the relevant date. The

court decided that the market value of the land acquired at 10.5.1973

should be $1.80 per sq. ft.

4.1.13 Iun Chung Yang & Anor. vs Superintendent of Lands and Surveys,

First Division, Sarawak, Federal Court of Malaysia, Kuching, Reference

:Federal Court Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1978, Judges : Chang Min Tat,

Salleh Abbas, Charles Ho, Dates : 3/9/79 and 6/12/79, Keywords : Market

value, methods of valuation.

Facts of the Case:

The High Court in an appeal against the decision of the Superintendent of

Lands and Surveys by the dissatisfied landowners whose land had been

compulsorily acquired, increased the valuation of the land but took off the

valuations on the houses and crops on the land. The owners appealed to

the Federal Court.

Issue:

The sole question of the appeal was whether the learned judge was right in

taking off the valuations of the houses and the crops on the land.

Court’s Decisions:

1. “We agree that the comparison method, that is the method of

taking recent bona fide sales of land in the vicinity possessing similar or

near similar characteristics recommended in Nanyang Manufacturing Co.

35

v. C.L.R. Johore and since then consistently adopted by our courts at all

levels, is fair method but in applying it, it has to be borne in mind that the

operative condition is “lands acquired and possessing similar advantages”.

It does not work when transactions of purchase of bare lands are used as

the yardstick for lands with houses. Nevertheless, we do not think that

difficulties of assessment absolves the court from its task of doing its duty

and from adopting another method open to it to do so.”

2. “Where therefore there are no comparable transactions available

that could validly be applied, the two usual methods are either the land and

capitalisation method in which to the value of the land as land is added a

capitalisation of the return actually received or reasonably expected to be

received there from as applied in State of Kerata vs. P.P. Hassan Koya…

the land and building method as applied in T. Adinarayana Setty v. Special

L.A. Officer.”

3. “We must not however be taken as expressing a preference for one

method over the other. In the case before us, we do not have the benefit of

the facts and arguments which would enable the application of the

capitalisation method and we are therefore in allowing the appeal from the

decision of the High Court, forced to adopt the addition method.”

4.1.14 Khoo Peng Loong & Ors. vs Superintendent of Lands And Surveys,

Third Division, High Court, Sibu, Reference : Civil Suits No. 3 – 6 of

1966, Judge: Lee Hun Hoe, Date: 19/4/1966, Keyword: Market value,

previous awards.

Facts of the Case:

Five lots of land were compulsorily acquired by the Government of

Sarawak on 18.5.1962. The affected lots were O.T. 20883 (0.22 acre),

Grant 121-F (0.36 acre), Lease 44180 (0.57 acre), Lease 57034 (0.402

acre) and Lease 57035 (0.272 acre). Three of these lots had road frontages.

The awards by the government for the five lots were deemed inadequate

by the owners.

36

The awards were as follows:

O.T. 20883 - $26,400

Grant 121-F - $41,500

Lease 44180 - $36,000

Lease 57034 - $53,400

Lease 57035 - $51,600

Issue:

The issue was the amount of compensation for the land taken i.e. the fair

market value of the land taken.

Court’s Decisions:

1. “The value of the land has to be considered as it stands in its actual

condition at the material date with all its existing advantages and all its

possibilities but excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of any

scheme by Government for which the land was compulsorily acquired.”

2. “…. the fairest and most favourable manner to consider compensation

was to take into account the most lucrative and advantageous way in

which the owner could dispose of the land with reference to its future

utility.”

3. “Any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land

must be disregarded.”

4. “Sales of land even within the vicinity are sometimes not relevant

unless those lands and the lands under acquisition are similarly

circumstanced and situated.”

5. It was a fallacy to value land as if it had already been built upon.

The Court was concerned with its possibilities and not its realised

possibilities.

6. “Appraisement of value of land is a matter of great difficulty and is

an art to be acquired by experience.”

7. The learned judge decided the awards of the Superintendent were

too low and should be increased:

37

O.T. 20883 from $26,400 to $50,600

Grant 121-F from $41,500 to $75,615

Lease 44180 from $36,000 to $40,823.50

Lease 57034 from $53,400 to $66,404.50

Lease 57035 from $51,600 to $66,410

4.1.15 Rubber Plantations Pte. Ltd. vs Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Batu Pahat,

Muar High Court, Land Reference No. 15-10-84, Judge : Richard Talalla,

JC, Date: 5/5/1990, Keywords: Market value, similarities and

dissimilarities, use of previous awards, assessment of value by reference to

percentages is unrealistic, consent order for previous acquisition not

relevant.

Facts of the Case:

Part of Sri Gading Estate having an area of more than 8,577 acres was

acquired on 13 September 1979 under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 for

construction of a road from the main road to village PB. Lot 5359 about

83.8930 acres was part of the Estate. A portion of 1.8125 acres of the lot

was to be acquired and was to be a strip cutting across the breadth of lot

5359 and would effectively divided lot 5359 into two. This strip was 105

ft long and 753 ft wide. At the time of acquisition the acquired land was

being used by its owners as a laterite road. Members of the public also

used this road without objection from the owners. The Collector awarded

compensation at $7,000 per acre. The plaintiff objected and claimed an

increased in compensation.

Issue:

The issue was the amount of compensation for the land taken i.e. the fair

market value of the land taken, as the plaintiff claimed it was below

market value.

38

Court’s Decision:

1. An acquisition award previously awarded was relevant in

determining the market value but adjustments had to be made as to size,

time factor and other dissimilarities between the land previously acquired

and the subject land.

2. The rule of thumb was the larger the tract of land the cheaper it is,

the smaller the land the more expensive.

3. The law relating to the award and amount of compensation to be

awarded in respect of land required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1960,

was set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bertam’s case (Pemungut

Hasil Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara, Butterworth vs Bertam Consolidated

Rubber Col Ltd.) which applied Ng. Tiou Hong’s case (Ng Tiou Hong vs

Collectors of Land Revenue, Gombak (1984) 2 M.L.J. 35/ (1984) 1 C.L.J.

350).

4. The assessment of value of the acquired land by reference to

percentages was in the circumstances unrealistic. There are too many

variables in the comparable lands.

5. Consent order for previous acquisition on the subject land may not

be relevant in determining the market value of the subject land.

6. After careful consideration and with the assistance of two

experienced assessors, the Judge was of the opinion that the market value

of the acquired land was $12,000 per acre.

4.1.16 Kok Keat & Anor vs. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling

High Court, Shah Alam, Civil Application No. 15-3-92, Judge: KC

Vohrah, Date: 29/9/1994, Keywords: Market value, development

potential, post-notification sale, loss of fruit, trees, surveyor’s fees.

Facts of the Case:

The plaintiffs were the owners of lot 305, Mukim Damansara, District of

Petaling. The land was an agricultural lot situated in the midst of an

industrial area with no authorized access from the Federal Highway. An

39

area of 117,067 sq. ft. (2.6875 acres) belonging to the plaintiffs was

acquired vide Selangor State Gazette Notification No. 759 dated 26.9.1990

under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The Collector valued

the lot at RM930,330 or about RM7.95 per sq. ft. The government valuer

took the view that the land only had development potential if there was

proper access. He compared the said land with two agriculture lots which

was 3 km. and 5 km. away which had industrial potential because of their

proximity to light industry zones. There were two other lots which were

nearer and more similar in nature to the acquired land, which was

transacted at RM9.00 and RM19.000 per sq. ft. respectively. These lands

were transacted quite close in time to the subject land and were in an

industrial area too. But they were not considered by the government

valuer. No other award was given even though the plaintiff sought

compensation for the loss of fruit trees and reimbursement of surveyor’s

fees.

Issue:

The plaintiffs appealed against the amount of compensation awarded,

claiming inadequacy of compensation. They contended that the following

factors were not considered by the Collector:;

a. The development potential of the land

b. A post-notification transaction involving a neighbouring lot

c. The claim for loss of fruit trees

d. The claim for reimbursement of surveyor’s fees.

MAIN MENU CONTENTS

Court’s Decision:

1. “In view of its development potential as an industrial lot, the land

had to be given a market value which reflected the use to which it was

being put as the time of valuation and to which it was reasonably capable

of being put in the future. The value should also take account of the high

visibility of the land from the Federal Highway.”

40

2. “The owners of the land could apply for the creation of a land

administrator’s right of way to give access to a public road under s 390 of

the National Land Code 1965 and, therefore, the real likelihood of having

a right of way created to a public road had to positively viewed.”

3. “….. a post-notification transaction, consideration should be given to its

value as it gave an indication whether the value given for the land was fair

or not.”

4. “The claim for loss of fruit trees failed as the value of the land on

account of its building potential was an inclusive rate and nothing could be

allowed in addition for trees.”

5. “The claim for reimbursement of surveyor’s fees also failed as

there was nothing in the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to justify the inclusion

of such a fee.”

6. The Collector’s award was increased from RM930,330 (RM7.95

per sq. ft.) to RM1,112,136 (RM9.50 per sq ft.). The plaintiffs were

entitled to the costs of the proceedings and their deposit refunded.

4.1.17 Merlimau Pegoh Limited vs Collector of Land Revenue, Jasin

High Court of Malaya, Melaka, Land Reference: No. 1 of 1968, Judge: N.

Sharma, Date: 23 January 1970, Keywords: Potential value, speculative

purchase (before and after gazette notification), offer to purchase on

subject land, persons entitled to act.

Facts of the Case:

A 3ac. 2rd. piece of land situated within the Mukim of Jasin, Malacca was

gazette for acquisition on 21.3.1968. The land owner was dissatisfied with

the compensation award and submitted an appeal to the Court under

Section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Issue:

Whether an offer price can constitute a good evidence as to the market

value of the land to be acquired.

41

Court’s Decisions:

1. Doctrine of potential value

“A vendor willing to sell his land at the market value takes into

consideration a particular potentiality or special adaptability of the land in

fixing his price. It is not fancy price or the obsession of the vendor that

enters into the consideration of the market value. The factor which,

however, does enter into consideration is the objective factor, namely

whether the said potentiality can be turned to account within a reasonably

near future.”

2. Potential of the land

“The inherent capacity of the land for development but at a date uncertain

cannot be termed the potential of the land for the purposes of determining

the market value on the date of the publication of the notification as it is

not a potential which is reasonably capable of achievement within a

reasonable time.”

3. Purchase agreement of the land

“An agreement for purchase of land is not to be ruled out of consideration

simply because it is speculative. If it can be shown that speculation had

actually entered into the market price at the date of notification, it is a

factor which has to be taken into consideration as the Act requires the

Court to take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of

the publication of the notification’’ Charlesworth and Co. .... it is only post

acquisition speculation of land, if any, which the Act prohibits from taking

into account. If there is any pre-acquisition speculation up to the date of

the publication of the notification that is a factor which affects the market

price of the land as on the date of the publication of the notification.”

4. Persons entitled to act

“Entitled to act” must not be confused with “persons competent to

alienate” and thus entitled to receive payment of compensation. Under the

definition of “persons entitled to act” a tenant-for-life, guardian, executor

or administrator were persons coming within the definition.

42

4.1.18 Nagappa Chettiar & Ors. vs Collector of Land Revenue

High Court, Alor Setar, Land Reference No 1 of 1968, Judges: Wan

Suleiman, Wan Ibrahim, Syed Idrus, Date: 30 September 1970, Keywords:

Acquisition of land for public purpose, market value, potential value,

betterment.

Facts of the Case:

The appellants were the co-owners of Lot 911, Mukim Pengkalan Kundor,

Kota Setar, Kedah. A 6ac. 3r. 1p. portion of the land was acquired by

Government for a road by-pass. It was located outside the Town Council

limits of Alor Setar and was quite close to the Government Low Cost

Housing Scheme. It is a Malay Reservation land but was owned by non-

Malay owners. The date of valuation was 30 June 1966. The Collector’s

award was $3,000 per relong. The appellant claimed for $16,500 per

relong in compensation (far exceeded the upper 20% limit of the award).

Issues:

Whether the Collector should have taken into consideration the potential

value of the land and whether the award reflected the true market value of

the land.

Court’s Decisions:

1. The safest guide to fair market value is the evidence from sales of

the subject property or of similar properties in the neighbourhood.

2. The price paid for a Malay Reservation land gives little guide as to

the value of non-Malay Reservation land because the former has a

restricted market and this has a depressed effect on the price.

3. Betterment value can be deducted from the total sum of

compensation.

4. The sale of a comparatively large area of land would expect a

reduction in value as an inducement to take over the bulk of the property

as a whole.

43

5. The land value was increased from $3,000 to $7,000 per relong.

6. Costs to be awarded to the appellants were disallowed since the

appellants’ claim exceeded by more than 20% the amount of the court’s

award.

7. Consideration for potentiality was given as the subject lot was

situated just outside the Town Council and close to Government Low Cost

Housing Scheme.

8. In assessing the amount of compensation, Section 12 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1960 prescribes that the considerations to be taken into

account are as set out in the First Schedule.

9. Paragraph 2(b) of the First Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act,

1960, provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be

awarded for any acquired land under this Act, there shall be taken into

consideration, inter alia, any increase in the value of the other land of the

person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired

will be put. It is clear therefore that this positive provision of our law

entitles us to deduct any betterment value from the total sum of

compensation which would otherwise be allowed.

10. The fair market value of the land as determined by the Court was

$7,272.44 per relong. The award of the Court was as follows:-

Market value of land acquired i.e.

Value of land before construction

$7,000/- per relong x 9.5459 relongs = $66,822.00

Estimated increase in value of land after acquisition at $1,000/- per relong

for a total area of 23 relong - $1,000/- per relong x 23 relongs =

$23,000.00. Amount to be deducted under Section 2(b) of First Schedule

to Land Acquisition Act, 1960 = $23,000.00

$43,822.00

Amount to be awarded under Section 2(c) of First Schedule

i.e. for severance loss at $7,000.00 - $4,000.00 = $3,000/- per relong for

portion “B” in Appendix “A” of Exhibit D 20, in area 8.54 relongs -

$3,000.00 x 8.54 relongs = $25,620.00

44

Award $69,442.00

Nett amount of award is $69,442.00 for 9.5459 relongs or $7,272.44 per

relong.

11. Applicants were not entitled to their costs (Section 51(1)(d)) since

the applicants’ claim exceeded by more than 20% the amount of the

Court’s award. Each party would pay its own cost.

12. Applicants were ordered to pay the fee of the Assessors at $100.00

a day for each.

4.1.19 Ng Chin Siu & Sons Rubber Estates Ltd. vs Collector of Land

Revenue, Hilir Perak, High Court, Ipoh, Land Reference: No. 4 of 1975,

Judges: Abdul Razak Bin Dato’ Abu Samah, Date: 23 May 1983,

Keywords: Acquisition of land for public purpose, estate land,

compensation.

Facts of the Case:

The acquisition, for a hospital, involved part of Ratanui Estate. The

affected area was 65 acres. It was located 2.5 miles from Teluk Anson

Town and fell within the Town Council Boundary, enjoying a frontage of

about 1800 feet to Jalan Changkat Jong. The land was flat and free from

flood. It was cultivated with rubber and other cultivations. Water,

electricity and bus services were available. The land was within a mixed

zone area but no application was made to convert and develop it.

The date of valuation was 3 August 1973. The Collector’s award was for

$8,500 per acre inclusive of the buildings. The appellants put a claim for

$40,000 per acre (including the buildings) under four headings: the land

value, replacement of existing buildings, loss of income and compensation

for retrenched workers.

Issues:

1. The value of the land

45

2. Replacement of existing buildings

3. Loss of income

4. Compensation for retrenched workers

Court’s Decisions:

1. The land value was raised to $9,500 per acre including the

buildings taking into account the fact that the replacement cost of the

building used by the Government Valuer was slightly on the low side.

2. The main determinant of whether or not the land has building

potential was the housing demands in the locality.

3. Estate lands are subject to Section 214A of National Land Code, which

means that approval is necessary for their sale.

4. Negotiated figures are normally based on considerations and

factors that may have no bearing on market value.

5. Sale by shares doesn’t make a comparison any less a good

comparable.

6. Cooperative Society sales are no different from sales in the open

market.

7. The principle of reinstatement applies only to property that does

not normally come upon the market and where value cannot readily be

assessed by ordinary methods of valuation.

8. The other items of claim were rejected for lack of merit. Appellant

had not succeeded in providing proof.

9. Interest at 6% was awarded, to be calculated from the date of

taking possession until project realisation.

10. Award of costs to the objector was disallowed.

4.1.20 S. L. Letchuman Chettiar, Tufail Ahmad & Fatah Mohd. @ Fazal

Mohamed vs The Collector of Land Revenue, Bukit Mertajam

High Court, Penang, Land Reference: No. 4 of 1966, Judge: H. S. Ong,

Date: 20.7.1968, Keywords: Market value, potential value, smaller areas

fetch higher prices, injurious affection, Sections 47 and 48 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1960

46

Facts of the Case:

This was an application against the compensation awarded by the

Collector of Land Revenue, Bukit Mertajam for the acquisition of part of

Lot 843(1), Mukim 6, Province Wellesley Central. The parcel had a total

area of 7a 2r 32p. Four acres were acquired for school site. The acquisition

was gazetted under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, vide

Penang G.N. No. 60 on 26 March 1964. The acquired land was ‘kampong’

land and was situated on the right side of the main trunk road running

from Prai southwards to Simpang Ampat. It was about three miles from

Prai and about 1/4 mile from the village of Simpang Ampat. It was outside

the gazetted limits of this village. At the enquiry on 27 August 1964, the

plaintiffs asked for compensation at 60 cents per sq. ft. or $26,134 per

acre. The Settlement Officer valued the land at $2,000 per acre. Based on

the opinion of the Chief Valuer who valued the land at $3,000 per acre, the

Collector accordingly awarded $12,000 for the four acres of land acquired.

Issues:

Whether the compensation award was commensurate with the true market

value and whether it was correct to disregard the potential value of the

acquired land in determining the compensation.MAIN

Court’s Decisions:

1. The potential value of the land should be taken into account in

determining the compensation.

“Owing to the establishment of the Prai Sugar Factory at Prai and some

minor industries in the vicinity and the completion of the Tunku Abdul

Rahman Bridge in October, 1965 (the construction of which was in

progress about the relevant date),although there was no actual sign of any

modern industrial, residential or commercial activity in the area around the

acquired land, about the relevant date, it is thought some account should

be taken of potentialities of the site being developed as an industrial site.”

47

2. In accordance with Section 47 of the Act, the Court awarded the

sum of $21,000, i.e. $5,250 per acre on account of the market value and

potentialities of the acquired land.

3. Potential value of the acquired land in relation to surrounding

developments should be considered. The size factor of the land should be

taken into account. “It is agreed that smaller areas fetch higher prices.”

4. “No evidence of injurious affection of the unacquired land by

reason of the acquisition is seen and accordingly no award is made.”

5. No interest under Section 48 of the Act was allowed as the amount

claimed by the appellants was excessive.

4.1.21 Setia Usaha Tetap Kementerian Pelajaran vs Collector of Land

Revenue, Butterworth, High Court, Penang, Land Reference No. 1 of

1971, Judge : Chang Min Tat, Date : 24.6.1972, Keywords : Market value,

methods of valuation, reduction of Collector’s award, evidence of sales,

evidence of awards.

Facts of the Case:

This was a reference to Court under the provisions of Part V of the Land

Acquisition Act 1960, objecting to the Collector’s award. The award was

RM8,500 per acre. The objection to the Collector’s award was made not

by the landowner but by the appellant on behalf of the Ministry of

Education for whom the land was acquired. The land that was acquired

comprised Lots 1040, 1041, 1042 and 1046 situated in Mukim 8, Province

Wellesley North. In assessing the compensation, the Collector relied on

the prices paid by the Government for the acquisition of the nearby lots to

the exclusion of any consideration for the private sales in the same

locality.

48

Issue:

Whether it was right for the Collector to rely on the prices paid by the

Government for the acquisition of the nearby lots and ignore the evidences

of sales of similar lands in the same locality.

Court’s Decisions:

1. The First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 contains the

principles relating to the determination of compensation and makes the

market value the main determinant, subject to certain considerations.

2. The Collector was not right in ignoring the evidence of sales of

other lands in the same locality that were clearly shown to be between

parties, not trammelled by any provisions of the law and not under

colouration of acquisition. These were sales that were clearly at arm’s

length.

3. The learned judge considered that the safest guide to determine the

fair market value was evidence of sales of the same land or similar land in

the neighbourhood after making due allowance for all the circumstances.

4. On the evidence produced and the considered opinions of two

assessors, the Collector’s valuation of $8,500 per acre was reduced to

$6,000 per acre.MAIN MEN

ONTENTS

4.1.22 Shaw & Sons (K.L.) Sendirian Berhad vs Pemungut Hasil Tanah,

Daerah Timor Laut, Penang, High Court Penang, Land Reference No.

25 of 1976, Judge: Arulanandom, Date: 23.8.1978, Keywords: Market

value, methods of valuation, onus of proof, vacant possession, sales

transactions within reasonable time, cost method, separate values for land

and buildings.

Facts of the Case:

Lot 166, T.S. 17, North East District, Penang, together with the four-

storey Shaw Building, bearing postal address No. 101, Teik Soon Street,

Penang, was acquired by Gazette Notification No. 198 on 30 August 1972.

49

The plaintiff was awarded compensation as below:-

a. Land : $166,140 ($20 per sq. ft.)

b. Building : $203,860

Total : $370,000 ($44.54 per sq. ft.)

Issues:

1. Whether the Collector’s award was equal to the market value of the land

together with building at the relevant date.

2. Whether the Collector was right in not taking into consideration the

facts that:-

a. The land and building was with vacant possession.

b. The plaintiff also owned adjoining Lots 167, 168 and 169, which

together with Lot 166, formed a decent block of land for redevelopment.

c. The prices of building materials and labour costs rose from July 1970.

3. The Collector was not consistent with his values as he had already

awarded $22 per sq. ft. for adjoining Lots 167, 168 and 169, which were

without vacant possession.

4. Whether the Collector was right in not considering the transport cost of

removing existing stocks of films, cinema equipment and office furniture

and other equipment.

5. Whether the Collector was right in ignoring consequential loss of six

months’ rental for alternative office accommodation.

MAIN MENU CONTENTS

Court’s Decisions:

1. “There was no evidence as to how buildings were designed for

possible redevelopment with adjoining lots.”

2. “Bearing in mind that there had been an earlier gazette notification

under Section 4, vide G.N. 297 dated 5.11.70, Shaw Bros. (S’pore) had

advance notice of Government’s intention to compulsorily acquire the

land, and being a subsidiary company of Shaw Bros. (K.L.), the owner of

Lots 167, 168 and 169, it would be logical to expect that the transfer was

intended to enhance the value of Lot 166 ..... If Shaw Bros. (K.L.) Sdn.

50

Bhd. and Shaw Bros. (S’pore) Sdn. Bhd. had genuine intentions of

redeveloping Lots 166, 167, 168 and 169, the transfer of the land should

have been effected before the new building on Lot 166 was constructed in

1971 and the redevelopment plans themselves should have been in

existence before construction work commenced.”

3. “Considering the evidence ...... the valuation of Lot 166 should be

made in isolation without considering its adjacence to Lots 167, 168 and

169.”

4. Sales transactions in 1969 or those too far from subject land could

not be considered good evidence.

5. Cost method not approved but overall value preferred. “When a

property is purchased with or without vacant possession, the transfer is in

respect of the holding, that is to say, the land with everything that stands

on it. It follows, therefore, that when it is transferred with possession, it

includes the building or buildings on the land and if transferred without

vacant possession it means that the sale is encumbered with people living

within the buildings and if such buildings were built before 1948, the

occupiers are controlled tenants protected by law and cannot be ejected

other than under the provisions of the Control of Rent Act, 1966.”

6. “It does not seem reasonable, therefore, for the appellants to work

out the compensation based on the total sum of the land and building. It

would be more correct, therefore, to value the land with vacant possession,

i.e. including the building. It does not matter whether there is an old or

new building on the subject land because in any case it will be

demolished. However, in this case, as the building on the land was only

about one year old at the time of gazette notification, the value per sq. ft.

of the land would naturally be substantially more than the adjoining land

with pre-1948 buildings.” The onus was on the plaintiff to satisfy the court

that the award made was inadequate. The plaintiff failed to do so, and for

the reasons stated above, the objection was dismissed with costs.

51

4.1.23 Subramaniam s/o Murugasoo vs Collector of Land Revenue, Slim

River, High Court, Ipoh, Land Reference No. 1 of 1966, Judge: S.

Chelvasingam MacIntyre, Date: 19.12.1966, Keywords: Market value,

factors considered in determining market value, analysis of sales evidence.

Facts of the Case:

Lot 398 of Mukim Ulu Bernam, Perak was acquired by the Perak State

Government on 11.3.1965. This lot had an acreage of 1a 3r 24p and was

situated approximately 1/5 mile outside Tanjung Malim town limit. The

land was purchased by the plaintiff in October 1963 at $2,895 per acre. On

16 May 1965 (a day before the receipt of the Notice of Enquiry), the

plaintiff received $1,000 paid to account of the purchase price of $8,000

where he agreed to sell lot 398. The memorandum of transfer was

registered on 11 June 1965. On the same day, the Collector asked the

parties to cancel the transfer. A re-transfer was effected on 2 September

1965. The acquisition proceeding was heard and disposed of on 14

December 1965.

The plaintiff claimed $6,000 per acre. Working on the 1956 valuation of

$500 - $600 per acre with due adjustments for time factor and road

frontage position, the Collector gave an award for $1,500 per acre. The

plaintiff’s valuer argued that the market value for lot 398 should be based

on the offer of $8,000 by the purchaser (Ong Teck Heng) in May 1964.

Issues:

1. What was the fair market value of the acquired land at the material date

of acquisition?

2. Method to be used in determining market value.

3. Factors to be considered in determining market value.

52

Court’s Decisions:

1. The learned judge quoted that the fact that an owner had accepted

an award without protest is no ground for the inference that the

compensation awarded was adequate.

MAIN MENU2. The judge commented that the price offered by Ong Teck Heng

was an inflated price by reason of the buyer’s desire to secure a road

frontage for his 40-acre rubber estate, which adjoins lot 398. He also

pointed out that when a person offers to buy a very small, undivided

portion of a holding, he must want to buy it for a specified and urgent

purpose. In any of these circumstances, it would be the owner who would

dictate the price. It would be unreasonable in normal circumstances to

expect of him to part with a portion of his land at a price per acre less than

what he would have demanded for the whole. It is well known that very

high prices are offered for small portion of land particularly with road

frontage, for the purpose of starting a business.

4.1.24 Yap Oh & Sons Ltd. & Anor. vs Collector of Land Revenue, Ulu

Langat, High Court in Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Civil Application No. 10

of 1973, Judge: Abdul Hamid, Date: 11.2.1976, Keywords : Market value,

potentiality of land.

Facts of the Case:

Lot 2554 Mukim of Kajang, a second layer lot was acquired by the

Selangor State Government on 30 September 1971. The parcel fronting

the subject lot was also under the same ownership. The Collector made an

award of $14,500 per acre in compensation, based on the market value

suggested by the government valuer, whereby the land had been granted

approval for conversion from agriculture to building (housing) with fees

paid. The applicants objected on the amount of the compensation claiming

that the market value of the land was at $30,000 per acre. At the High

Court, the applicants made a higher claim of $38,000 per acre, producing

53

to the Court the approval granted for conversion on the subject land, upon

payment of $19,222.50 in total fees and $5,937.66 in cost of filling.

Issues:

1. Whether the potential value to the acquired land was appropriately

considered.

2. Whether a proper adjustment for value was made to the comparable

land used.

Court’s Decisions:

1. The onus is on the landowners to produce evidence to show that

the award is inadequate.

2. The material date is of importance in assessing the compensation.

3. The potential development value of the land should not be

disregarded.

4. The fact that the land owners also owned the adjoining lot fronting

the main road, whereby access could be created through this lot should not

be disregarded.

5. The Court then awarded $19,000 per acre for the land.

6. Taking into account that the applicants had claimed $30,000 per

acre before the Collector and $38,000 per acre at The Court, whereby the

sums claimed were so excessive, some deduction of the costs were made.

The applicants therefore were entitled to only two-thirds of the costs.

N

U CONTENTS

54

4.2 Kes Mahkamah Berkaitan Naik Nilai (Betterment): Pekara 2 (b), Para 2

Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960.

4.2.1 Estate and Trust Agencies (1972) Limited vs The Collector of Land

Revenue, Johor Bahru, High Court, Johor Bahru, Reference: 1/1955,

Judge: Paul Storr, Year: 1955, Keywords : Residual Valuation, betterment

Facts of the Case:

An area of 12 acres 0 rood 16 poles of the plaintiff’s land was acquired by

the Johor Government on 21.11.1954. The plaintiff claimed 50 cents per

sq. ft. for the land acquired. The land acquired was for building a school.

Using the Comparison Method, the plaintiff’s appraisers revalued the land

acquired at 35 cents per sq. ft. due to a change in the portion acquired. The

respondent’s valuation officer valued the land using the Residual Method.

He was of the opinion that the land was ripe for development and

therefore valued it as a developed site at 50 cents per sq. ft. Deducting all

development costs he arrived at a net value of 24 cents per sq. ft. He also

valued the plaintiff’s adjoining land and deducted 10% as betterment

value. The respondent awarded 25 cents per sq. ft for the first 10 acres 3

roods 20 poles and 10 cents per sq. ft for the remaining 1 acre 0 rood 36

poles. He did not apply any set off for the increase in value of the

remaining land, nor did he award for injury.

Issue:

What the fair market value of the land acquired was at 21.11.1954 and

what, if any, increase in value of the plaintiff’s adjoining land was likely

to accrue from the use of the acquired land as a school.

Court’s Decisions:

1. The Court adopted the Residual Method used by the respondent’s

valuer but made some changes to the values. The award was

approximately 25.5 cents per sq. ft. for the overall land acquired of 12

55

acres 0 rood 16 poles, and deducting betterment value from the applicant’s

adjoining land.

2. The Court allowed for betterment but considered 5% increase to be

reasonable.

MAIN MENU CONTENTS

4.2.2 Kenny Height Developments Sdn. Bhd. vs Pentadbir Tanah Daerah

Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur, High Court, Kuala Lumpur,

Land Reference No. S1-15-01-94, Judge: Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Sidin,

Date: 13/6/1997, Keywords: Inaduate and insufficient compensation,

comparable, severance, betterment.

Facts of the Case:

Lots 21766-21768, the scheduled lands were located in the Mukim of

Batu, Wilayah Persekutuan. These lots were situated along Jalan Sri

Hartamas, a road leading from Jalan Duta to Jalan Damansara. The

scheduled lands were located about 8 km. to the north of the Kuala

Lumpur city center and about 4.5 km. away from Damansara town centre.

The plaintiff had applied to Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur for a mixed

development of subject lots by a letter dated 1.3.1989. On 15.5.1991, the

application was approved. The total area acquired was 9.115 acres. It was

acquired on 16.8.1990 for the New Kuala Lumpur-Klang Valley

Expressway. Compensation awarded was at RM44,257 per acre or

RM403,403 but because of betterment on the plaintiff’s remaining land, a

sum of RM155,670 was deducted from the award, leaving RM247,733

being the actual compensation. The value of the betterment was calculated

at RM7,500 per acre. The counsel for the plaintiff requested the award to

be increased to RM120.00 per sq. ft. and that no betterment be awarded

against the award. The plaintiff also claimed further compensation in

respect of severance caused to the remaining portion of its land which

were not acquired.

56

Issues:

1. The main contention was inadequate and insufficient compensation.

2. The determination of compensation for severance on the remaining

unaffected land.

3. No betterment be awarded against the award.

4. The plaintiff contended that comparables used was not acceptable.

Adjustment factors such as size, time and location should be considered in

determining the market value.

MAIN MENUONTENTS

Court’s Decision:

1. The learned judge decided upon RM60.00 per sq. ft. for the said

land after considering the following factors:-

a. On the size factor, small parcel of land was not suitable for comparison

as against an area of approximately 30 acres in the case of scheduled land.

b. The use of a comparison based on an award was unacceptable.

c. With regard to location factor, the scheduled land was sited nearer to the

city centre and thus this factor had to be considered.

d. Time factor and planning approved also had to be considered.

2. On the point of severance, the learned judge decided that the

severance had not affected the development as approved by the Dewan

Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur since the development carried out was only on

one side of the subject land and the severance did not render any part of

the land useless. No claim for severance was allowed.

3. On the issue of betterment, the learned judge decided that the

acquisition itself was not a betterment. The acquisition must relate to

something which bettered the subject lot such as building of

infrastructures which the subject land could enjoy. The land was acquired

for an expressway but the expressway did not contribute anything to the

land and there was no direct access to the expressway. In order to gain

access, one had to use the existing road and make a detour to the

expressway and thus there was no betterment to the remaining portion. No

betterment claim was allowed.

57

4.2.3 Mohd Salleh bin Agil, Ismail bin Sidek, Yaacob bin Hassan vs

Pemungut Hasil Tanah Johor Bahru, High Court Johor Bahru, Rujukan

Tanah No. 15-45-86, Judge: Abdul Razak, Date : 4 Mac 1990, Keyword:

Injurious affection, severance.

Facts of the Case:

Part of Lot 883 was gazetted on 27 February 1986 to be acquired for

‘Tapak Takungan, Projek Penutupan Sg. Segget’. The acquisition entailed

taking a 0.6303 ac (27,454 square feet) portion out of the total 4ac. 30p.

An earlier acquisition had already cut the original parcel into two. The

present acquisition severed the land even further. The Collector

(respondent) made an award for RM50 per square foot for land taken; the

plaintiffs asked for RM70 per square foot.

In deriving the value for the subject lot, both the plaintiffs’ and

respondents’ valuers relied on the same comparable (lot 357); the

difference in their valuation outcomes turned mainly on the differing view

each side took with regard to the development potential of the subject

property. The plaintiffs also claimed for injurious affection in respect of

foul smell affecting the land, and for severance arising from the

‘mutilation’ of the land.

Issues:

To what extent ware development potential real for the subject property

and whether the compensation claims for injurious affection and severance

were justified.

Court’s Decisions:

1. Development Potential of land

The Court rejected the argument for development potential on the basis

that the ‘ripeness’ was not established in the subject lot’s case. In the

judge’s words,

58

“...Untuk mempunyai potensi bagi sesuatu kegunaan yang matang, ia

bergantung kepada ia diperlukan (demand) bagi kegunaan itu; jika tidak,

sungguhpun potensi itu ada; tetapi masanya itu belum sampai untuk

digunakan. Jika tidak, kita boleh berkata sesuatu tempat di dalam hutan

belantara mempunyai potensi untuk didirikan sesebuah bandar, misalnya

sungguhpun ia jauh dari kediaman manusia. Potensi itu mungkin ada,

tetapi di dalam jangkamasa yang amat jauh ke hadapan. Memberi harga

kepada sesuatu keadaan tanah seolah-olah potensinya itu ada pada masa

ini, tentulah tidak munasabah.”

2. Injurious Affection and Severance

There was no injurious affection involved since the foul smell complained

of did not arise from the acquisition activity but rather from circumstances

even before. However, the Court recognised the incidence of severance

and its 25% reduction effect on value of remaining land.

3. For the land taken, the Court took the government valuer’s

valuation and made a slight upward adjustment for location to come up

with an award of $57 per square foot.

4. The Court also awarded compensation for severance at $14 per

square foot of the severed land.

5. Interest at 8% per annum was awarded, to be calculated from the

date of acquisition and the date of payment.

4.2.4 Teo Siok Guan & 6 Ors. vs Collector of Land Revenue, Kluang, Johor

High Court, Johor Bahru, Land Reference No. 1 of 1954, Judge: Paul

Storr, Date: 30.10.1954, Keywords: Fair market value, principles in

determination of compensation, betterment, deduction for enhanced value

of the other land, the compensation awarded by the Court should not be

less than the award by the Collector, Land Acquisition Enactment No. 16

of 1936.

59

Facts of the Case:

This is an objection against the award of the Collector of Land Revenue,

Kluang, Johore referred to the Court under Section 22 of the Land

Acquisition Enactment No. 16 of 1936 in respect of the compulsory

acquisition by the Government of the State of Johore of 108 acres being

part of Lot 3320 owned by the plaintiffs. The land acquired was situated

on the 3rd. mile Jalan Mersing-Kluang with frontage to the main Mersing-

Kluang road.

The government intended acquiring 268a 1r 30p held under Certificate of

Title No. 1165, Lot 3320 for the purpose of “a permanent military camp”.

The notice was posted and duly served on the plaintiffs in accordance with

Sections 9 and 10(i) of the Land Acquisition Enactment dated 20 October

1953. The plaintiffs claimed $300 per acre for the 160a 1r 30p portion

under rubber and $250 per acre for the 108 acre part under lalang. The

Collector’s awards were $600 per acre for the land under rubber and $150

per acre for the land under lalang. This brought the total award to

$112,462.50. His basis of computation for compensation was the “market

value” at the date of declaration (20 October 1953) with “no

improvements” whatsoever made on the land by the parties involved.

On 29 December 1953 the plaintiffs filed their objection to the award of

$150 per acre for the 108-acre portion and asked the matter to be referred

to Court under Section 22 of the Enactment. The grounds of objection

were:-