ASIAN REGAL HOLDINGS SDN BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Selangor (BA-15-88-11/2021)

Landowner Land Administrator BA-15-89- 11/2021 Lot 692, Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM

Landowner Land Administrator BA-15-90- 11/2021 Lot 691 Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1324 Landowner Land Administrator BA-15-91- 11/2021 Lot 690 Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1323 Landowner Land Administrator BA-15-92- 11/2021 Lot 689 Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1322 Landowner Land Administrator BA-15-93- 11/2021 Lot 688 Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1321 Landowner Land Administrator BA-15-94- 11/2021 Lot 687 Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held Landowner Land Administrator under Title No. GM 1320 BA-15-95- 11/2021 all the Scheduled Lands in cases nos. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 Concessionaire Land Administrator BA-15- 12/2022 GRN 52339, Lot 15 (now known as GRN 334342, Lot 8596), Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan LLM Land Administrator [9] Asian Regal is the registered owner of the Scheduled Lands, all located in Mukim Hujung Permatang, Daerah Kuala Selangor. The scheduled lands were the subject to partial acquisition for the West Coast Expressway. The Applicant in land reference case no. 95, namely the Concessionaire, did not file any appeal. Cases Nos.: 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95 [10] On 30.1.2020, the Respondent issued Form D via Government Gazette No. 477 dated 30.1.2020 (“Government Gazette on 30.1.2020”), notifying that 0.0246 hectares of Lot 693 (subject matter for case no. 88); 0.0915 hectares of Lot 692 (subject matter for case no. 89); 0.0911 hectares of Lot 691 (subject matter for case no. 90); 0.3923 hectares of Lot 690 (subject matter for case no. 91);

0.7995 hectares of Lot 689 (subject matter for case no. 92); 0.8025 hectares of Lot 688 (subject matter for case no. 93) and 0.2851 hectares of Lot 687 (subject matter for case no. 94) were to be acquired for the purpose of the project known as Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping-Banting) bagi Seksyen 7 (Persimpangan Assam Jawa-Persimpangan Tanjung Karang) Part 2 of 2 (Tambahan), Daerah Kuala Selangor (collectively “the Scheduled Lands”). [11] The Land Administrator issued Form E and Form F for the Scheduled Lands, both dated 13.7.2020 and served them on the Landowner on 6.8.2020, requiring the Landowner to attend the first land inquiry on 17.8.2020 (“1st Land Inquiry”). [12] The 1st Land Inquiry was then adjourned to 16.8.2021 (“2nd Land Inquiry”) because the Landowner has yet to appoint their valuer and the Valuation and Property Services Department (Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta) (“JPPH”) had not completed its valuation report on the Scheduled Lands. [13] The 2nd Land Inquiry was further adjourned to 26.8.2021 (“3rd Land Inquiry”) as there was an amendment to the acquisition plan for Lot 689 and the JPPH was unable to finalise its valuation because there were additional information from the agency involved. [14] Pursuant to the completion of the 3rd Land Inquiry, the Respondent gave its award in respect of the Scheduled Lands to the Landowner. [15] On 26.8.2021, the Respondent then issued its award to the Applicant in Form H dated 26.8.2021 (“Award”). [16] Dissatisfied with the award by the Land Administrator, on 4.10.2021, the Landowner filed its objection in Form N in respect of the Award for all the Scheduled Lands. Case No. 261 [17] On 9.12.2016, the Respondent issued Form D via Government Gazette No. 4809 dated 9.12.2016 (“Government Gazette on 9.12.2016”), notifying that 21.3773 hectares of Lot 15 (LL 8596) was to be acquired for the purpose of the project known as Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (LPB) dari Persimpangan Assam Jawa-Persimpangan Tanjung Karang, Pakej 7 (Part 1), Daerah Kuala Selangor (“Lot 15”). [18] The Land Administrator issued Form E and Form F for Lot 15, both dated 24.02.2017 and served them on the Landowner on 30.3.2017, requiring the Landowner to attend the first land inquiry on 30.3.2017. [19] The inquiries for Lot 15 were adjourned for numerous times, and on 8.3.2018, the Respondent gave its award in respect of the acquisition of Lot 15 to the Landowner, and Form H dated 8.3.2018 was issued. [20] The Landowner did not file any objection. However, as stated earlier, LLM filed its objection. The Landowner was allowed to intervene and be made the Second Respondent to the land reference proceedings regarding the objection of the LLM, by way of an Order dated 29.5.2023. The Legal Principles [21] Article 13 of the Federal Constitution guarantees a person to a right to property which reads: “(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.” [22] The law and proceedings relating to land acquisition are governed by the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (“LAA”). This is a special Act which provisions must be strictly adhered to. [23] The Court of Appeal in Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd v. Inch Kenneth Kajang Rubber Ltd & Anor Other Appeals [2011] 4 MLJ 403 observed as follows: “[4] The LAA 1960 is a special Act relating to the acquisition of land, the procedure for the assessment of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition and all matters incidental thereto, including the manner, procedure, and circumstances upon which any dissatisfied party to an award of compensation may pursue legal redress in the court. In view of it being a special Act we are unanimous that the statutory provisions therein must be strictly adhered to and made applicable to all relevant parties. All procedural steps leading for a final determination of any award shall be in accordance with the provisions of LAA 1960. This is clearly recognised in respect of all proceedings in the court, as can be seen from s. 45(2) of the LAA 1960 which reads: (2) Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act.” [24] Section 14 of the LAA makes provision that awards of compensation for compulsory acquisition are assessed and decided on by a land administrator. [25] In the event there is any objection in respect of an award made by the land administrator, Section 36 of the LAA confers jurisdiction on the High Court to determine. Section 36 provides: “36. Reference to Court

No reference to Court under this Act shall be made otherwise than by the Land Administrator

The land Administrator may, at any time of his own motion by application in Form M refer to the Court for its determination any question as to –

the true construction or validity or effect of any instrument;

the person entitled to a right or interest in land;

the extent or nature of such right or interest;

the apportionment of compensation for such right or interest;

the persons to whom such compensation is payable;

the costs of any enquiry under this Act and the persons by whom such costs shall be borne.

Without prejudice to the powers to the Court under this Part, the costs of any reference under subsection (2) shall be borne by such person as the Court may direct or, in the absence of such direction, by the Land Administrator.

After an award has been made under section 14 or compensation made under section 35 or Part VII the Land Administrator shall refer to the Court for determination any objection to such award or compensation duly made in accordance with this Part.” [26] Section 37 of the LAA provides the basis on which an aggrieved party may have the right to object to the award of the land administrator by way of a land reference to the High Court provided that the total amount awarded in compensation in respect of the acquired land is not less than five thousand ringgit. The High Court here is referred to as the land reference court. [27] Section 37 of the LAA 1960 reads:

Any person interested in any scheduled land who, pursuant to any notice under section 10 or 11 or any person interested pursuant to any compensation made under section 35 or Part VII who, has made a claim to the Land Administrator in due time and who has not accepted the Land Administrator’s award thereon, or has accepted payment of the amount of such award under protest as to the sufficiency thereof, may, subject to this section, make objection to-

the measurement of the land;

the amount of the compensation;

the persons to whom it is payable;

the apportionment of the compensation.

Where the total amount awarded in compensation does not exceed five thousand ringgit, the written award of the Land Administrator shall be final with regard to both the measurement of the land and the amount of compensation awarded, and no objection may be made under subsection (1) in respect thereof.

Where the total amount of any award exceeds thirty thousand ringgit, any Government or any person or corporation on whose behalf such land was acquired or being occupied or used pursuant to Part VII, shall be deemed to be a person interested and may make objections on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1). [Emphasis added] [28] In a land reference proceeding, the sole objective of the High Court is to ensure that the interested party receives adequate compensation from the land administrator. The High Court judge, with the assistance of two assessors, is to determine only the terms of reference, specifically whether the compensation provided is adequate. A land reference is not concerned with any wrong done to the applicant or remedies available to them. The High Court’s role is strictly limited to addressing the terms of reference as outlined in sections 36(2) and 37(1) of the LAA. [29] The scope of land reference proceedings is limited by Section 44 of the LAA which provides:

In every proceeding under this Part, the scope of the inquiry shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. [30] The law strictly confines the jurisdiction of a land reference court to examining only the interests of those impacted by the objection, and no further. [31] In the case of Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and another case [2017] 3 MLJ 561, the Federal Court described the procedure in dealing with the opinions of the assessors, as follows: “(a) by s. 40A, the matters are to be heard before a single judge. The court shall appoint two assessors to assist the judge in determining the objection made by the appellants against the amount of compensation awarded by the land administrator;

at the end of the proceedings, the assessors are required to give their opinions in writing as to the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded in this case pursuant to s. 40C of the Act. The assessors must give due consideration to all the heads of compensation claimed by the appellant under the Act;

the opinion of the assessors are to be recorded by the judge. The judge has the duty to consider both of the opinion of the assessors. The judge is to exercise his mind in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant, based on the principle of equivalence; and

the provisions of sub-s 36(4) of the Act are to be given full effect. The judge shall not be bound to conform to the opinions of the assessors. In the event of any disagreement between the assessors with regard to the amount of compensation, the judge may elect to consider which is the two opinions in his view is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The judge is also at liberty to depart from the opinion of either of the assessors and decide on the reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant by giving reasons for so doing.” [32] Arahan Amalan Hakim Besar Malaya Bil. 1 Tahun 2017, dated 6 June 2017 which outlines the conduct and procedure of handling land acquisition cases by the land reference court that ought to be strictly adhered to. Analysis [33] At the land reference proceedings, this court was assisted by a government assessor, Puan Rosliza binti Ramli from Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta Malaysia, and a private assessor, Encik Azman bin Mamat of Nilai Harta Consultant Sdn Bhd. [34] For case 261, this court was assisted by a government assessor Encik Abdul Rahman bin Mohd Nasir from Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta Malaysia, and a private assessor, Encik Azman bin Mamat of Nilai Harta Consultant Sdn Bhd. [35] The Landowner's objections and submissions in relation to compensation for the acquisition of certain lots are summarize below:

Grounds of Objection (as per Amended Form N): o Lots 687, 691, 692, and 693: The Landowner seeks compensation for injurious affection (IA). o Lots 688, 689, and 690: The Landowner seeks higher compensation for injurious affection and severance. [36] With regard to Market Value, the Landowner argued that the Scheduled Lands are not part of an estate. It was argued that the lots should be valued independently as individual parcels. [37] Pertaining to Injurious Affection and Severance, the Landowner contended that the future potential value of the Scheduled Lands, including the impact of the acquisition on their future development, should be considered in determining compensation. Case no. 88 [38] This land reference involves Lot 693, Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1326 owned by Asian Regal Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 201001007336 (891957-H)), (“Lot 693”). [39] The landowner sought the following from the land reference:

the compensation for market value of the Scheduled Land be increased to RM120.00 psm;

(ii) the compensation for Severance and Injurious Affection of the balance land of Lot 693 at 30% of the market value of the land of RM120.00 psm;

(iii) the balance of Consequential loss of RM3,428.21;

(iv) late payment charge at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of compensation increase from the date of Form K until the date of full settlement under Section 48 of the Act; and

Costs under Section 51 of the LAA. Case no. 89 [40] This land reference pertains to Lot 692, Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1325 owned by Asian Regal Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 201001007336 (891957-H)) (“Lot 692”). [41] The landowner sought the following from the land reference:

the compensation for market value of the Scheduled Land be maintained at RM100.00 psm;

(ii) the compensation for Severance and Injurious Affection of the balance land of Lot 692 at 40% of the market value of the land of RM100.00 psm;

(iii) the balance of Consequential loss of RM2,647.78.

(iv) late payment charge at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of compensation increase from the date of Form K until the date of full settlement under Section 48 of the Act; and

Costs under Section 51 of the LAA. Case no. 90 [42] This land reference involves Lot 691, Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1324 owned by Asian Regal Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 201001007336 (891957-H)) (“Lot 691”). [43] The landowner sought the following from the land reference:

the compensation for market value of the Scheduled Land be maintained at RM100.00 psm;

(ii) the compensation for Severance and Injurious Affection of the balance land of Lot 691 at 40% of the market value of the land of RM100.00 psm;

(iii) the balance of Consequential loss of RM2,648.67;

(iv) late payment charge at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of compensation increase from the date of Form K until the date of full settlement under Section 48 of the Act; and

costs under Section 51 of the LAA. Case no. 91 [44] This land reference involves Lot 690, Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1323 owned by Asian Regal Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 201001007336 (891957-H)) (“Lot 690”). [45] The landowner sought the following from the land reference:

the compensation for market value of the Scheduled Land be maintained at RM100.00 psm;

(ii) the compensation for Severance and Injurious Affection of the balance land of Lot 690 be increased to 80% of the market value of the land of RM100.00 psm;

(iii) the balance of Consequential loss of RM3,571.72;

(iv) late payment charge at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of compensation increase from the date of Form K until the date of full settlement under Section 48 of the Act; and

costs under Section 51 of the LAA. Case no. 92 [46] This land reference involves Lot 689, Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1322 owned by Asian Regal Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 201001007336 (891957-H)) (“Lot 689”). [47] The landowner sought the following from the land reference:

the compensation for market value of the Scheduled Land be maintained at RM100.00 psm;

(ii) the compensation for Severance and Injurious Affection of the balance land of Lot 689 be increased to 90% of the market value of the land of RM100.00 psm;

(iii) the balance of Consequential loss of RM2,732.00;

(iv) late payment charge at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of compensation increase from the date of Form K until the date of full settlement under Section 48 of the Act; and

costs under Section 51 of the LAA. Case no. 93 [48] This land reference involves Lot 688, Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1321 owned by Asian Regal Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 201001007336 (891957-H)), (“Lot 688”) [49] The landowner sought the following from the land reference:

the compensation for market value of the Scheduled Land be maintained at RM100.00 psm;

(ii) the compensation for Severance and Injurious Affection of the balance land of Lot 688 be increased to 70% of the market value of the land of RM100.00 psm for Portion A and to 95% of the market value of the land of RM100.00 psm for Portion B;

(iii) the balance of consequential loss of RM2,791.93;

(iv) late payment charge at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of compensation increase from the date of Form K until the date of full settlement under Section 48 of the Act; and

costs under Section 51 of the LAA. Case no. 94 [50] This case involves Lot 687, Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GM 1320 owned by Asian Regal Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 201001007336 (891957-H)) (“Lot 687”) [51] The landowner sought the following from the land reference:

the compensation for market value of the Scheduled Land be maintained at RM100.00 psm

(ii) the compensation for Severance and Injurious Affection of the balance land of Lot 687 at 20% of the market value of the land of RM100.00 psm;

(iii) the balance of consequential loss of RM2,217.56;

(iv) late payment charge at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of compensation increase from the date of Form K until the date of full settlement under Section 48 of the Act; and

costs under Section 51 of the LAA. Case no.261 [52] This land reference involves Lot 15 (now known as Lot 8596), Mukim of Hujung Permatang, District of Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan held under Title No. GRN 52339 owned by the Landowner (“Lot 15”). [53] LLM (applicant in LR 261) sought the following from the land reference:

the Market Value of the Scheduled Land be determined at

(ii) compensation for severance for the Northern and Southern Portions be determined at 2.5% of the Market Value of the Scheduled Land;

(iii) the Land Administrator’s award of compensation for Injurious Affection for the Northern and Southern Portions be set aside;

(iv) the Land Administrator’s award of compensation for ‘kos pembangunan’ and ‘kos pindaan pelan pembangunan’ be set aside;

the Landowner be ordered to refund any excess compensation to the Applicant within 2 months from the date of Judgement;

(vi) costs be paid to the LLM;

(vii) deposit for lodgement of Form N be refunded to the LLM; and

(viii) such further and other reliefs as this court deems fit. The Issue of Estate Land [54] The land owner’s valuer and the respondent’s valuer in these land references had assessed the involved lots as small individual land lots while the LLM and Concessionaire’s Valuer had evaluated the lots as plantation/estate land, referred to in their report as Sungei Trap Estate. According to the valuation report prepared by the LLM and Concessionaire’s Valuer, the total area of the estate is stated to be 451.75 hectares (1,116.297 acres/4,517,500 square meters). [55] Pertaining to the issue of estate land, this court made reference to the paragraph 1 (2 D) of the First Schedule of the LAA which reads: “(2D) In assessing the market value of any scheduled land which is an estate land, or forms part of an estate land, the market value of such land shall be determined taking into consideration section 214A of the National Land Code.” [56] Based on paragraph 1 (2D) of the First Schedule of the LAA, the market value shall be determined taking into consideration section 214A of the NLC. [57] In this regard, section 214A of the NLC reads: 214A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no estate land is capable of being transferred, conveyed or disposed of in any manner whatsoever unless approval of such transfer, conveyance or disposal has first been obtained from the Estate Land Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) established under subsection (3) …

For the purpose of this Act, “estate land” means any agricultural land held under one or more than one title the area or the aggregate area of which is not less than 40 hectares and the alienated lands constituting such area are contiguous.

For the purpose of this Act, alienated lands held under final title or qualified title or a combination thereof, shall be taken to be contiguous notwithstanding that they are separated from each other only by such land as is used, required or reserved for roads, railways or waterways.” [58] To qualify as estate land under Section 214A(11) of the National Land Code (“NLC”), three criteria must be satisfied:

the land must be agricultural land.

(ii) the land must be contiguous.

(iii) the aggregate area of the contiguous agricultural land must be at least 40 hectares. [59] The Landowner, however, argued that Lot 15 (measuring 374.114 hectares) does not meet the agricultural land criterion, as it is categorized as "Tiada.". Additionally, the Landowner contended that some lands within the Sungei Trap Estate, including Lots 1686, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, and 192, are also not agricultural lands. These are allegedly categorized as "Bangunan" with the express condition of "Bangunan Kediaman." [60] Nonetheless, the Scheduled Lands in LRs 88 to 95 (Lots 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, and 693) and Lot 15 in LR 261 are physically contiguous. This contiguity supports the assertion that the Scheduled Lands qualify as estate lands under Section 214A of the NLC. [61] Federal Court decision in MMC Tepat Teknik Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang & Anor and other appeals [2023] 5 MLJ 1 which held: [49] Now, Lots 1604 and 1608 were held under land office titles issued before the National Land Code came into force on 1January 1966. This meant that even though the category of land use was stated as "nil", the implied condition is that the land shall only be used for "agricultural" purposes – see s. 53(2) of the NLC which reads as follows: Conditions affecting use of lands alienated before commencement until category of land use imposed

(1) This section applies to all lands alienated before the commencement of this Act other than land which, immediately before that commencement, is subject to an express condition requiring its use for a particular purpose.

All land to which this section applies which is at the commencement of this Act:

country land; or

town or village land held under Land Office title,shall become subject at that commencement to an implied condition that it shall be used for agricultural purposes only: Provided that this condition:

shall not prevent:

the use of any part of the land for any purpose for which it could (under section 115 ) be lawfully used if it were subject instead to the category "agriculture"; or

the continued use of any part thereof for any industrial purpose for which it was lawfully used immediately before the commencement of this Act;and

(ii) shall not apply to any part of the land which is occupied by or in conjunction with:

any building lawfully erected before that commencement; or

any building erected after that commencement, the erection of which would (under section 115 ) be lawful if the land were subject instead to the category "agriculture". [62] In the case of Bertam Consolidated Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Land Revenue, Province Wellesley [1984] 1 MLJ 164 the court stated: ‘being an estate, the subject lot, unlike the comparable lots, is subject to the restriction under Section 214A of the National Land Code and this is a pertinent factor in valuing an estate land” and “It could not be valued as a separate parcel unrelated to the remaining portion of the subject lot.” [63] The land search presented by the Landowner’s Submissions reveals:

Lot 15 was alienated on August 9, 1951, prior to the National Land Code (NLC) coming into effect on January 1, 1966.

(ii) Lot 15 is categorized as "Tiada" with no express condition.

(ii) Lot 15 is designated as country land. [64] Founded on these facts, subsection 53(2) of the NLC applies, subjecting Lot 15 to the implied condition that it may only be used for agricultural purposes. This is further corroborated by the quit rent imposed on Lot 15, which closely aligns with the rate specified under Rule 13, paragraph 7.3.2(i) of the Selangor Land Rules 2003 (as amended by the Selangor Land (Amendment) Rules 2016 [Sel. PU 6/2016]) for "country land alienated for agriculture." [65] The Landowner argued that the Lots 1686, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191 and 192 are not agricultural lands cannot stand. This is because the Date of Valuation for the Land References is 30 January 2020. [66] Land searches for Lots 1686, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, and 192 indicate that an application for a change in express condition, restriction, category, and subdivision was made on 20 October 2022, and registered on 5 June 2023. Both these dates of 20 October 2022 and 5 June 2023 occurred after the Date of Valuation (January 30, 2020). [67] The Landowner argued that the Scheduled Lands are not contiguous with other lots in the Sungei Trap Estate because Lot 686, situated between Lot 687 and Lot 192, belongs to another landowner, disrupting the continuity. However, this claim was not supported by evidence in the Landowner’s valuation reports. The Concessionaire’s valuation report suggested that Lot 686 is part of the Sungei Trap Estate and belongs to the Landowner, a point JLW did not contest in their rebuttal. As this submission by the Landowner amounts to a statement from the Bar, this court cannot accept this argument. [68] The Landowner’s Valuer and the Government Valuer failed to consider the principles outlined in Paragraph 1(2D) of the First Schedule of the LAA and Section 214A of the NLC. [69] This court is of the view that the selection of comparisons should be based on the provisions of Paragraph 1(1A), Paragraph 1(2BA), and Paragraph 1(2D) of the First Schedule of the LAA. [70] Hence, this court is of the view, that the comparisons made by the Landowner’s Valuer and the Government's Valuer should be rejected as they did not consider the principles outlined in Paragraph 1(2D) of the First Schedule of the LAA and Section 214A, National Land Code. In this regard, only the Concessionaire’s Valuer evaluated the lots as plantation/estate land. [71] Therefore, this court made the necessary adjustments to the award of the Land Administrator on the basis that the Schedule Land is estate land. Injurious Affection [72] This court is of the view that the purpose of the acquisition will not reduce the value of the remaining land. The area involved will not affect the existing access road, and the lots in question are part of an agricultural estate that forms a contiguous land entity. These lots remain usable. [73] The reasons stated by the Landowner’s Valuer involve a claim of subdivision rather than detrimental effects. The Landowner's Valuer’s rebuttal report in the view of this court, failed to substantiate this claim. For these reasons, this claim is not allowed and the Land Administrator’s award is maintained. Severance [74] The landowner has filed an objection regarding severance in the amended Form N. However, there was no claim made by the Landowner’s Valuer in the valuation report. According to paragraph 2(1) of the Third Schedule of the LAA, “The applicant’s valuer’s report alone must establish a prima facie case for the applicant.”. As the Landowner’s Valuer had failed to include severance in its valuation report, this court finds there is no prima facie case for the Landowner and therefore this court cannot consider this claim for severance. [75] This claim therefore must fail. Other Costs [76] Pertaining to this claim, no claim for other costs was made by the Landowner’s Valuer in the valuation report. According to Paragraph 2(1), Third Schedule, Land Acquisition Act 1960, it states that “The Applicant's Valuation Report in itself shall constitute a prima facie case for the Applicant.” [77] This court therefore finds this ground of objection had not been proven by the landowner, and therefore the award of the Land Administrator is maintained. Conclusion [78] Based on the foregoing analysis and having considered and applied the First Schedule of the LAA 1960 as well as the applicable principles as established by case law authorities, this court made the following orders: Case no. 88

The market value is RM60.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM12,300.00;

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

(vi) The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Case no. 89

The market value is RM60.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM36,600.00;

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court Case no. 90

The market value is RM60.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM36,440.00;

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

(iv) Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Case no. 91

The market value is RM60.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM156,920.00;

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

(vi) The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Case no. 92

The market value is RM60.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM406,215.39;

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

(vi) The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Case no. 93

The market value is RM60.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM321,000.00;

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

(vi) The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Case no. 94

The market value is RM60.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM114,040.00;

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

(vi) The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Case no. 94

The market value is RM60.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM1,083,515.39; (for Lot 687 Geran 1320, Lot 688 Geran 1321, Lot 689 Geran 1322, Lot 690 Geran 1323, Lot 691 Geran 1324, Lot 691 Geran 1324, Lot 692 Geran 1325 and Lot 693 Geran 1326)

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

(vi) The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Case no. 261

The market value is RM50.00 per square meter;

(ii) The overpaid amount is RM 1,881,202.40

(iii) All other claims are not allowed;

(iv) The other awards of the Land Administrator is maintained;

Deposit is returned to the applicant; and

(vi) The applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Date: 6 December 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For the appellants for (88 to 94) and Second Respondent (261) Nur Azmina Izzati binti Aini Zaman, Yap Vern – Chieh Gary Tetuan Ramesh Dipendra Jeremiah Law Advocates & Solicitors No. 9-2, 2nd Floor Jalan Medan Setia 1 Plaza Damansara Bukit Damansara 50490 Kuala Lumpur. info@rdj-law.com +6 03 2095 6505 For the appellant (261) Ho Ai Ting, Preveena a/p Ravindra Kumar Tetuan Tetuan Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill Advocates & Solicitors Aras 6, Menara 1 Dutamas Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 Kuala Lumpur, general@lkkco.com.my +6 03 6208 5888 For the Respondent: Etty Eliany binti Tesno Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor. +6 03 5544 7183