BUKIT CAGAK DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang (BA-15-112-11/2023)

No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.” [8] The law and proceedings relating to land acquisition are governed by the LAA 1960. This is a special Act which provisions must be strictly adhered to. [9] 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

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:

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.” [10] Section 14 of the LAA 1960 makes provision that awards of compensation for compulsory acquisition are assessed and decided on by a land administrator. [11] In the event there is any objection in respect of an award made by the land administrator, Section 36 of the LAA 1960 confers jurisdiction on the High Court to determine. In this regard, 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.” [12] Section 37 of the LAA 1960 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. [13] 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] [14] 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.” [15] Moreover, 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 and Findings [16] During the land reference proceedings, this court was assisted by a government assessor, Puan Azlina binti Mohamed Nor from Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta Malaysia, and a private assessor, Encik Noor Azhar bin Mohd Asha’ari of Intra Harta Consultant Sdn Bhd. Both their reports are annexed herewith as Annexure A and Annexure B respectively. [17] The law provides that in having referred its objections to the land reference court, the applicant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the respondent’s award of compensation is inadequate. Wah Yahya J (as he then was) in Ong Yan & Anor v. Collector of Land Revenue, Alor Gajah, Malacca [1986] 1 MLJ 405 in the following terms: “In land acquisition cases the burden is on the applicant to make out a prima facie case of inadequate award. Only when he succeeds in doing so would the respondent be called upon to introduce his evidence; otherwise the applicant’s case must fail and the Collector’s award should stand”. [18] The compensation proposed by the applicant’s valuer and the government valuer and the award of the Land Administrator are as reproduced below: “ Government Valuer Private Valuer Award Market Value of the said Acquired Land RM200.00 per square meter RM1,867.76 per square meter RM200.00 per square meter ” [19] Section 2 of the First Schedule to the LAA 1960 is vital in the assessment of compensation arising out from a compulsory acquisition. [20] The Federal Court in Ng Tiou Hong v. Collector of Land Revenue Gombak [1984] 2 MLJ 35 explained the main principles in determining the market value as follows: “Under the Act there is no provision relating to the method of valuation. However the Courts have adopted the principle of valuing the scheduled land as a whole especially in cases where the area is large and owned by numerous individual owners in different portions. In Chuah Say Hai & Ors v. Collector of Land Revenue, Kuala Lumpur [1967] 2 MLJ 99 Gill J’s ruling in that case was later re-affirmed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Collector of Land Revenue v. Alagappa Chettiar [1971] 1 MLJ 43 46 which held that under the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 the scheduled lands are to be valued as a whole. The learned judge in that case valued the whole of the 23 acres as a single unit even though the totality of the land acquired were held by the applicants in seven separate titles for areas varying between approximately 11 acres and just under half-acre. He was right in law in doing so. … 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 the main principles: — First, market value means the compensation that must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect 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 basis 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 any element of compulsion. Secondly, the market price can be measured by a consideration of the prices of sales of similar lands in the neighborhood or locality and of similar quality and positions. Thirdly, its 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 used 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 a developed area, its distance to or from a town, availability of access road to and within it or presence of a road reserve indicating a likelihood of access to be constructed in the near future, expenses that would likely be incurred in levelling 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. [Superintendent of Lands and Surveys, Sarawak v. Aik Hoe & Co Ltd [1966] 1 MLJ 243, Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam [1939] AC 302 312, and Nanyang Manufacturing Co v. Collector of Land Revenue Johore [1954] MLJ 69]. The safest guide is evidence of sales of similar lands of similar quality or position in the locality at or prior to the time of acquisition. The prices paid for such sales can be used as comparables subject to making allowances for all the circumstances”. [21] The Court of Appeal in JH Capital Services Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling [2020] 4 MLJ 1 stated the need to take into account paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the LAA 1960 in making an assessment on amount of compensation: “It is clear to us from the learned High Court Judge’s judgment that the current market value based on the comparable transactions was considered and accepted by the Judge. The learned Judge did aware and had considered about the proposed future development of the said land. The learned High Court Judge did not erred in his findings”. Market Value [22] The applicant objected to the award of compensation given by the respondent as reproduced below:

the compensation awarded by the respondent does not reflect the market value as it is significant below market rate; and

the amount of the compensation awarded does not align with the evaluation conducted by the private valuer appointed by the applicant. [23] The applicant cited the case of Oriental Rubber & Oil Palm Sdn Bhd v. Collector of Land Revenue, Kuantan [1983] 1 MLJ 315, where the High Court held: “The Land Acquisition Act has to be read together with Article 13 of the Federal Constitution which provides that no person may be deprived of property, save in accordance with law and that no law may provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation. And the Act thus read makes obvious that the implementation of the various sections of the Act must be affected to the end inter alia that the subject who is deprived of his property is provided with adequate compensation.” [24] It was further submitted by the applicant that in assessing the market value of the Acquired Land, paragraph 1(1A) of the First Schedule to the LAA 1960 ought to be considered. For ease of reference, paragraph 1(1A) of the First Schedule of the LAA 1960 is reproduced below: “(1A) In assessing the market value of any scheduled land, the valuer may use any suitable method of valuation to arrive at the market value provided that regard may be had to the prices paid for the recent sales of lands with similar characteristics as the scheduled land which are situated within the vicinity of the scheduled land and with particular consideration being given to the last transaction on the scheduled land within two years from the date with reference to which the scheduled land is to be assessed under subparagraph (1).” [25] The applicant submitted that the government valuer comparables were all based on transactions that were transacted over 3 years ago and therefore would diminish the weight given to the price these lands were transacted. [See: Horsedale Development Berhad v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling [2021] 1 LNS 600] [26] It was further submitted by the applicant that the location of the government valuer comparables are out of Klang Valley and are located in a less developed area and that the government valuer comparables are leasehold whereas the Acquired Land is freehold. [27] Hence, the applicant submitted that the government valuer comparables should not be considered to determine the actual market value of the Acquired Land. [28] Instead, the applicant contended that private valuer comparable No. 3 is best suited for adoption in this land reference. The private valuer comparable No. 3 has similar characteristics to the Acquired Land. Based on the adjustments, the net adjustment was 35% upward adjustment of the transacted price. The applicant’s Valuer therefore arrived at the market value of RM1,867.76 per square meter. [29] Moreover, the applicant argued there were additional considerations to put weight on the applicant’s fair market value argument. In this regard, the applicant referred to the decision in the Kuala Lumpur High Court Land Reference No.: WA-15-10-04/2019 (The Royal Selangor Golf Club v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur) (“Suit 10”). [30] The applicant submitted that Suit 10 relates to the compulsory acquisition of small portion of the land owned by the Royal Selangor Golf Club (“RSGC”), a freehold land with specific conditions for the use of “padang golf dan kelab golf” only. The government’s valuer in Suit 10 valued the acquired land at the price of RM200.00 per square meter whereas the applicant’s valuer valued the Acquired Land at the price of RM9,000.00 per square meter. The High Court increased the award to RM3,225.00 per square meter. [31] In reply, the respondent submitted that the search presented by the applicant’s solicitor was a search from the year 2001. However, the respondent’s learned counsel stated that this title is actually nil and also subject to the express condition of golf course. An official search certificate for lot HSD 67823, shows that the land use category is none, and the expressed condition for this land is a golf course. There are no commercial buildings as submitted by the applicant's solicitor in this case. [32] The respondent further submitted that all three comparables are categorized as building land with commercial conditions, while the Acquired Land is categorized as nil/no category with the expressed condition of a golf course. The three comparables by the applicant have a better land use purpose, which is commercial. [33] According to the respondent, the three comparables of the applicant is for commercial zone. The Acquired Land, in contrast is for residential use. This is based on the information for compensation purposes from PLANMalaysia @Selangor (Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Negeri Selangor) through a letter with the reference JPBD. Sel./01/02/03176(6) dated 12 August 2022, Rancangan Tempatan Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam 2035, No Warta 2642 dated 7 July 2022. [34] At the crux of this land reference is the market value of the Acquired Land. The Acquired Land is a golf course located in Bukit Kemuning Golf & Country Resort with residential zoning. [35] The applicant’s valuer had valued the Acquired Land as commercial land whilst the government’s valuer had valued the Acquired Land as a golf course with residential zoning. The respondent, the Land Administrator had awarded the compensation on the basis that the Acquired Land is a golf course with residential zoning. [36] There are no common comparable in this land reference. [37] The applicant’s valuer proposed the amount of RM1,867.76 per square metre for the Market Value of the Acquired Land. The government valuer proposed RM 200.00 per square metre. The land area that was acquired was 2,828.82 square metres. [38] The applicant’s valuer had produced three (3) comparable consisting of commercial land situated in Shah Alam (Comparable 1), Kinrara, Petaling (Comparable 2) and Cyberjaya (Comparable 3). The range of the transactions for commercial land was between RM1,300 and RM1,900 a square metre. The applicant’s valuer proposed the amount of RM1,867.76 per square metre for the Subject Lot. [39] The government valuer had submitted five (5) comparable consisting of golf courses with residential areas of Rawang (Comparable 1), Dengkil (Comparable 2) and residential in Bandar Puncak Alam (Comparable 3 to 5). The range of the transactions for the gold course is between RM70.00 to RM 90.00 per square metre.

For the residential land, the range was between RM180.00 to RM 00 per square metre. The government valuer proposed the market value of RM 200.00 per square metre. [40] Both the assessors that assisted this court in coming to a decision were of the same opinion that the comparable provided by the applicant’s valuer (Comparable 1, Comparable 2 and Comparable 3) should be rejected by this court as the land in all three comparable were commercial land. These three comparables are different from the Acquired Land, which is a large golf course (over 500,000 square meters) with potential for non-commercial residential use. Additionally, the Acquired Land is also located within the residential area of Kota Kemuning. As the Acquired Land is situated within the residential are of Kota Kemuning, this court is of the considered view the highest and best use for the Acquired Land is its residential potential. [41] The applicant’s valuer also submitted a court decision (WA-15-10- 04/2019) as Comparable 4 in his report. This court is of the view this decision is not suitable as a comparison as it involves other elements that were considered in the compensation awarded. Moreover, this court is not bound by the decision of the High Court in Suit 10. [42] Although Comparable 1 and 2 used by the respondent's valuer involve land with golf courses, this court observed that Comparable 2 is located outside the state of the Acquired Land. For this reason, this court is of the view that the this comparable should be disregarded. [43] Comparisons 3 to 5 used by the respondent's valuer are residential land. The Acquired Land is zoned for residential use. These comparables were found to be more suitable, although subject to adjustments such as location, ownership tenure, zoning, and size. [44] After adjustments and having considered the opinion of the two assessors, this court finds that the market value for the Acquired Land is RM350.00 per square meter. Conclusion [45] 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 order:

The market value was increased to RM350.00 per square meter;

(ii) The increase in total award is RM424,322.30; and

(iii) Late payment charges of 5% per annum on the total RM424,322.30 from the date of Borang K until full and final settlement. [46] 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: 16 October 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For The appellant Derek Chong Ching Hsiang, Koh Chuan Zhan Tetuan Derek Chong Advocates & Solicitors A-19-09 Residensi 1 Utara, No. 42 Jalan 1/2B, Off Jalan Ipoh, Selayang. 68100 Kuala Lumpur. derek@dclaw.com.my +6 03 6740 9531 For the Respondent: Mohd Abdul Hakim Bin Mohd Ali 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 LAPORAN ASSESSOR KERAJAAN No. Rujukan Kes Mahkamah : Bukit Cagak Development Sdn Bhd vs PTD Klang Lot Terlibat : Lot PT 73488, HSD 67823, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor. Tujuan Pengambilan : Menaiktaraf Jalan di Jalan Bukit Rimau, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Selangor. Tarikh Nilaian : Berdasarkan Seksyen 4 bertarikh 30 Jun 2022. Kategori Tanah : Tiada Pegangan : Kekal Syarat Nyata : Padang Golf Luas Tanah :

51.8684 hektar (518,684 meter persegi) Luas Diambil :

0.2828818 hektar (2828.818 meter persegi Luas Tanah Baki : 515,855.18 meter persegi. Pemilik : Bukit Cagak Development Sdn Bhd - 1/1 bahagian Zoning/ Perancangan : Kediaman ANNEXURE A Komen Pengapit Kerajaan: Setelah meneliti Laporan Penilaian dan Jawapan Bertulis daripada Penilai Pemohon (Tetuan Weise International Property Consultants Sdn Bhd) dan Penilai Responden (JPPH), pendapat saya adalah seperti berikut:

Nilai Pasaran (Tanah) Isu yang dibangkitkan adalah Nilai Pasaran bagi tanah padang golf terletak di Bukit Kemuning Golf & Country Resort yang berzon perumahan. Penilai Pemohon telah menilai tanah Lot Subjek sebagai tanah perdagangan manakala Penilai Responden telah menilai tanah sebagai tanah padang golf berzon perumahan. Pampasan oleh Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang juga sebagai tanah padang golf berzon perumahan. Semakan saya mendapati kedua-dua Penilai Pemohon dan Penilai Responden telah menggunakan Kaedah Perbandingan untuk nilai asas tanah dalam mencadangkan amaun pampasan yang munasabah ke atas Lot Subjek. Saya juga mendapati kedua-dua Penilai telah mengemukakan jadual pelarasan dalam mengemukakan tuntutan pampasan. Saya juga mendapati tiada perbandingan sepunya dari kedua-dua laporan penilaian Penilai Pemohon dan Penilai Responden. Borang N yang dimasukkan oleh Pemilik Tanah mempertikaikan kurangnya pampasan bagi nilai tanah diambil. Lain-lain tuntutan tidak dimasukkan dalam Borang N yang dikemukakan. Oleh itu, Pengapit Kerajaan akan memberi ulasan berdasarkan tuntutan Pemilik Tanah melalui Borang N sahaja. Perbandingan yang digunakan : Penilai Pemohon telah mengemukakan cadangan nilaian untuk pampasan tanah sebagai tanah perdagangan berjumlah RM5,283,553.11 atau secara analisisnya RM1,867.76 semeter persegi untuk keluasan tanah diambil 2,828.82 meter persegi. Penilai Responden mencadangkan pampasan tanah sebagai tanah padang golf berzonkan perumahan sebanyak RM565,763.60 atau RM200.00 semeter persegi. Ini berasaskan keluasan diambil iaitu 2,828.818 meter persegi. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang telah mengurniakan pampasan tanah sebanyak RM565,763.60 atau RM200.00 semeter persegi untuk keluasan diambil seluas 2,828.818 meter persegi. Asas nilaian adalah sebagai tanah padang golf berzon perumahan. Penilai Pemohon mengemukakan tiga (3) perbandingan tanah perdagangan yang terletak di kawasan Shah Alam (Perbandingan 1), Kinrara, Petaling (Perbandingan 2) dan Cyberjaya (Perbandingan 3). Julat transaksi harga tanah perdagangan sebagaimana digunakan Penilai Pemohon adalah antara RM1,300 sehingga RM1,900 semeter persegi dan mencadangkan nilai asas tanah perdagangan bagi Lot Subjek sebanyak RM1,867.76 semeter persegi. Penilai Responden mengemukakan lima (5) perbandingan tanah padang golf dan tanah kediaman di mana tanah padang golf yang terletak dalam kawasan Rawang (Perbandingan 1), Dengkil (Perbandingan 2) dan tanah kediaman di Bandar Puncak Alam (Perbandingan 3 hingga 5). Julat transaksi harga tanah padang golf adalah antara RM70.00 sehingga RM90.00 semeter persegi manakala tanah kediaman antara RM180.00 hingga RM190.00 semeter persegi. Penilai Responden mencadangkan nilai asas tanah sebanyak RM200.00 semeter persegi. Pandangan saya adalah seperti berikut untuk kesemua Perbandingan yang digunakan Penilai Pemohon dan Penilai Responden: 1) Perbandingan 1 hingga 3, Penilai Pemohon tidak sesuai dan sebanding digunakan kerana merupakan merupakan tanah perdagangan. Ini berbeza dengan Lot Subjek yang merupakan tanah padang golf yang bersaiz besar (lebih 500,000 meter persegi) yang berpotensi untuk kediaman bukan perdagangan. Selain itu, Lot Subjek juga terletak di dalam kawasan kediaman Kota Kemuning. Disebabkan ini, saa berpandangan kegunaan tertinggi dan terbaik bagi Lot Subjek adalah potensi kediaman. Saya mencadangkan ketiga-tiga perbandingan ini diketepikan; dan 2) Penilai Pemohon juga mengemukakan keputusan Mahkamah (WA-15-10-04/2019) sebagai Perbandingan 4 dalam laporannya. Saya berpandangan keputusan Mahkamah ini tidak sesuai dijadikan perbandingan kerana ia mempunyai elemen-elemen lain yang dipertimbangkan dalam keputusan terhadap pampasan yang diberikan tersebut. 3) Semakan saya mendapati Perbandingan 1 dan 2 yang digunakan Penilai Responden merupakan tanah padang golf namun Perbandingan 2 terletak di luar negeri dengan Lot Subjek (Negeri Sembilan) dan ia kurang sebanding dengan Lot Subjek dan wajar ditolak. Manakala Perbandingan 3 hingga 5 (tanah kediaman) yang digunakan oleh Penilai Responden sesuai digunakan memandangkan Lot Subjek berzon perumahan, namun perlu melalui pelarasan atas faktor-faktor seperti lokasi, pegangan hakmilik, zoning, dan saiz. Saya berpendapat Perbandingan terbaik adalah Perbandingan 5 Penilai Responden iaitu transaksi yang melibatkan Lot PT40876 + 3 lain, Mukim Ijok, Daerah Kuala Selangor pada tarikh transaksi 11 Januari 2018. Namun, saya berpandangan pelarasan Penilai Pemohon perlu mengambilkira beberapa faktor lain. Saya mencadangkan penggunaan Perbandingan 3 sebagai perbandingan terbaik kerana:

Merupakan tanah kediaman dan boleh dibandingkan dengan Lot Subjek yang berzon perumahan; dan

Keluasan tanah yang sebanding dengan Lot Subjek Pelarasan semula Perbandingan 5, Penilai Responden adalah seperti berikut : Analisa Balasan : RM184.06 smp

Masa (Jan 2018 – Jan 2019) : +10% Jan 2019 – Jan 2020 : +10% Jan 2020 – Jun 2022 (-5% sthn) : -10% +10% RM202.47 smp

Lokasi: (Kota Kemuning vs Puncak Alam) – Lot Subjek lebih baik : +30%

Kemudahsampaian – lapisan pertama Jalan utama (lot subjek lebih baik) : +10%

Pegangan (Kekal vs Pajakan 99 tahun) : +10%

Faktor built upon (Ada vs Tiada) : +20% ---------- +70% RM141.73 smp (+) RM344.20 smp Katakan RM350.00 smp Selepas pelarasan, saya dapati kadar yang munasabah untuk Lot Subjek adalah RM350.00 semeter persegi. Dengan mengambilkira pelarasan semula yang dijalankan bagi kedua-dua Perbandingan di atas, juga analisis dan penilaian yang dijalankan kedua-dua belah pihak, saya mencadangkan pampasan nilai tanah ditetapkan pada kadar RM350.00 pada tarikh Warta. Pengiraan cadangan pampasan nilai tanah adalah seperti berikut: Tanah diambil : 2,828.818 mp x RM350.00 smp = RM990,086.30 Tolak : (-) Award Pentadbir Tanah = RM 565,764.00 Pampasan tambahan =

Pampasan Kos Kacau Ganggu Pampasan ini tidak diulas oleh saya kerana ia tidak dinyatakan dalam Borang N oleh Pemohon. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang juga telah mengawardkan pampasan ini kepada Pemohon.

Kos Kehilangan Pendapatan Pampasan ini tidak diulas oleh saya kerana ia tidak dinyatakan dalam Borang N oleh Pemohon. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang juga telah mengawardkan pampasan ini kepada Pemohon. Penilaian Pampasan Saya berpendapat nilaian bagi tujuan pampasan ke atas Lot PT 73488, HSD 67823, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor adalah dipinda seperti berikut: 1) Pampasan Nilaian Tanah: Tanah diambil : 2,828.818 mp x RM350.00 smp = RM990,086.30 Tolak : (-) Award Pentadbir Tanah = RM 565,764.00 Pampasan tambahan = RM 424,322.30 (RINGGIT MALAYSIA: EMPAT RATUS DUA PULUH EMPAT RIBU TIGA RATUS DUA PULUH DUA DAN SEN TIGA PULUH SAHAJA) Tarikh: 10 Ogos 2024 Saya yang menjalankan amanah, Sr AZLINA BINTI MOHAMAD NOR Penilai Berdaftar (V-1085)