Page 1
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
Page 2
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
Page 3
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
Page 4
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
Page 5
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.
Page 6
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)
Page 7
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
Page 8
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
Page 9
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)
Page 10
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)
Page 11
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.
Page 12
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)
Page 13
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.
Page 14
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.
Page 15
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).
Page 16
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.
Page 17
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,
Page 18
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.
Page 19
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
Page 20
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”.
Page 21
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
Page 22
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.”
Page 23
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.
Page 24
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:-
Page 25
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
Page 26
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.
Page 27
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.
Page 28
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).
Page 29
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
Page 30
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.
Page 31
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.
Page 32
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
Page 33
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.
Page 34
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
Page 35
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.
Page 36
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.
Page 37
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:
Page 38
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.
Page 39
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
Page 40
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.”
Page 41
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.
Page 42
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.
Page 43
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.
Page 44
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
Page 45
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
Page 46
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
Page 47
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.”
Page 48
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.
Page 49
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.
Page 50
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.
Page 51
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.
Page 52
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.
Page 53
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
Page 54
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
Page 55
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
Page 56
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.
Page 57
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.
Page 58
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,
Page 59
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.
Page 60
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:-