Judgment

Shaik Daud Md Ismail JCA

(delivering the judgment of the court)

1. This appeal is in respect of a land acquisition matter and is against the decision of the High Court which had on September 26, 1995, confirmed the award of the Kedah Land Administrator. The declaration of the intended acquisition of the scheduled lands under s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (the Act) was published in the Government of Kedah Gazette on March 3, 1994. The scheduled lands form part of Kellang Lama and Home Divisions of Kuala Muda Estate totalling 2,581.4 acres.

2. The scheduled lands are located about six kilometers from the town of Sungai Petani, Kedah, and is divided by the Sungai Petani / Alor Setar main road and both sides have road frontage. It is not disputed that the scheduled lands are situated in a fast developing area. In the vicinity of the scheduled lands, are two housing schemes, a teachers' training college, the Institute Tadbiran Awam northern region, Pusat Serenti and several other government departments. Therefore, there is potential for development. The Land Administrator awarded RM10,000 per acre and this award was upheld by the High Court. Hence the appeal to this court.

3. It is the contention of the appellants that in the light of the position of the scheduled lands being in the midst of a developing area, the award of RM10,000 does not reflect the market value of the lands. The appellants pray for RM20,000 per acre. In addition they pray for an award for injurious affection of an area of 1.55 acres amounting to RM9,300. This item of compensation though claimed was not dealt with by the learned Judge.

4. It cannot be denied that for the purpose of the Act an award of compensation for acquisition of land is based on the market value of the land in question at the time of the gazette notification as provided for in the First Schedule to the Act. What is market value has been amply explained in Ng Tiou Hong v Collector of Land Revenue Gombak [1984] 2 MLJ 35 a decision of the Federal Court.

5. For estate land, as in the present case, several other factors ought also to be considered in order to arrive at the market value. The main factor is the comparable value of other estate lands transacted in the same area or in the vicinity where the nature and terrain of the land are more or less the same. (See Siah Brothers Plantation Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah & Daerah Kuantan [1993] 2 AMR 1900).

6. In this respect the appellants' valuers had provided four comparables while the respondent's valuation report contained eight comparables, all relating to estate lands in the vicinity and elsewhere. The learned Judge found a common comparable transaction in both valuation reports and this concerned a piece of land about one kilometer from the Bakar Arang Industrial area comprising of 555.633 acres. This land on lot 1029 was transacted at RM13,500 per acre on July 22, 1990. This land is also near the Sungai Petani / Butterworth main road. At the time of the transaction, there was a rapid industrial development in the surrounding area.

7. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that this common comparable was the best comparable to take into consideration as the other comparables were situated in the Kulim district, which is nearer to Penang. Although the learned Judge considered the common comparable to be the most suitable he nevertheless considered all the other comparable transactions contained in both the appellants' and the respondent's valuation reports.

8. On going through his judgment, we are satisfied that the learned Judge had considered every factor in order to determine the market value of the scheduled lands and he has given his reasons for accepting some and rejecting others. These are findings of fact of which this court ought not to interfere unless there are cogent reasons to do so. We find none. We are of the view that the learned Judge had based his decision on correct principles of law relating to land acquisition. Having considered this matter carefully we can find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Judge on the amount of compensation for the scheduled lands in question. However, we did find that the learned Judge had failed to consider the appellants' claim for injurious affection. In his submission before us, the learned Senior Federal Counsel on behalf of the respondent, had also not touched on this item of compensation.

9. In the light of this, we allowed the appeal only to the extent of allowing the claim of compensation of RM9,300 for injurious affection with interest at 8% per annum from the date of possession to the date of realisation, and confirmed the learned Judge's decision on the amount of compensation awarded for the scheduled lands. We also ordered fifty percent of the costs to the appellants here and in the court below and the deposit to be refunded to them.

Cases

Ng Tiou Hong v Collector of Land Revenue Gombak [1984] 2 MLJ 35

Siah Brothers Plantation Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah Kuantan [1993] 2 AMR 1900

Legislations

Land Acquisition Act 1960: s.8

Representations

C.W. Wong & K.H. Lim (Skrine & Co) for Appellant

Roslan Abu Bakar, State Legal Adviser's Office for Defendant

Notes:-

This decision is also reported at [2000] 1 AMR 939