CATURAN DINAMIK SDN BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling (BA-15-259-09/2024)

Enclosure 20 was the Applicant’s application to amend their Form N dated 3.7.2023 by including new grounds of objection. This Court disallowed the application for the reasons set out below.

The Applicant is the registered owner of property held under the description of HS(D) 323912, PT 7412, Pekan Puchong Perdana, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (PT 7412) with an area of 32,570 square meters. The Respondent acquired 17,515 square meters of PT 7412 for “Cadangan Tapak Kolam Takungan dan Laluan Paip Air Mentah bagi Projek Pembangunan Skim Air Rasau” vide Gazette Notification No. 2646 dated 11.11.2021.

This is the summary of the Applicant’s claim before the

Market Value of the Land to Acquired RM16,967,793.15

Submission Cost to

3.

4.

RM77,451.76 Consultation Fee

RM5,939,372.62 Costs of Land Acquisition Proceedings RM53,259.19 Total Claim:

The Respondent conducted the inquiry and issued the Form H dated 25.5.2023 wherein the Applicant was awarded compensation in the sum of RM26,317,904.12.

The Applicant received the award with objection and filed their Form N on 3.7.2023. Their objection was referred to this court vide the Respondent’s Form O dated 23.9.2024.

The following is the timeline of the proceedings in Court –

Event 23.9.2024 Form O (Enclosure 1)

10.2024 1st case management Enclosure 1 23.10.2024 Applicant counsel’s notice of appointment 6.11.2024 2nd case management Enclosure 1 3.12.2024 Applicant valuer’s report 2.1.2024 Applicant valuer’s rebuttal and common plan 6.1.2025 3rd case management Enclosure 1 Government valuer’s report 17.1.2025 Government valuer’s rebuttal 21.1.2025 Applicant valuer’s common plan 22.1.2025 4th case management Enclosure 1 Applicant valuer’s rebuttal 12.3.2025 Applicant’s submissions 12.6.2025 5th case management Enclosure 1 17.7.2025 Hearing date vacated 24.7.2025 Respondent’s submission filed 1.8.2025 Enclosure 20 filed 14.8.2025 1st case management Enclosure 20 25.9.2025 Hearing date vacated 4.11.2025 Hearing of Enclosure 20 Case management Enclosure 1

In Enclosure 20, the Applicant prays for leave to amend his Form N to include further grounds of objection to the Respondent’s award; namely – “(j) Gagal untuk mengambil pertimbangan dan/atau memberi pampasan yang munasabah dan sewajarnya mengenai kesan kemudaratan yang akan timbul pada baki tanah milik kami di HS(D) 323912, PT 7412, Pekan Puchong Perdana, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan setelah pengambilan tanah iaitu berbaki kira-kira 1.505 hektar (sekitar 15,050 meter persegi atau 3.720 ekar);

Gagal untuk mengambil pertimbangan dan/atau memberi pampasan yang munasabah dan sewajarnya terhadap kehilangan keuntungan yang akan dialami oleh kami selepas pengambilan tanah tersebut atas sebab kerja-kerja pembinaan telah dimulakan.”

The affidavit in support of Enclosure 20 was affirmed by Derrick Tan Teik Suan, the Applicant’s director. He averred that –

the Applicant’s new valuer, advised them they should make a claim for injurious affection and loss of profits as a result of the acquisition;

(ii) the new claim is contained in their new valuation report dated 16.7.2025;

(iii) the delay was unintentional and caused no prejudice to the Respondent; and

(iv) this involved their constitutional right under Article 13 Federal Constitution and therefore they must be afforded this opportunity to amend their Form N.

The Respondent objected to the application as the delay was inordinate. The Applicant had his valuer during the inquiry before the Respondent from 22.12.2022 until the date of award on 18.1.2023. The same valuer’s report and rebuttal were filed for this reference. It is only some 2 years later that the Applicant is seeking to amend their Form N to include new grounds. Principles of law

The fundamental principle of adequate compensation in land acquisition is firmly enshrined under Article 13(2) Federal Constitution which reads – “No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.”

This constitutional safeguard ensures that any deprivation of property must be accompanied by adequate compensation. The Land Acquisition Act 1965 (Act 286) serves as the primary legislation governing the process of compulsory acquisition. This special statute prescribed a detailed legal framework for the notification, inquiry, valuation and compensation stages of the acquisition.

Act 286 requires strict compliance with its procedural and substantive provisions. In Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd v. Inch Kenneth Kajang Rubber Ltd & Anor Other Appeals [2011] 4 MLJ 403, KN Segara JCA held at 406 – “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.”

Form N serves as the gateway document by which an interested person under the Act 286 invokes a ‘land reference’ to the High Court to dispute the Respondent’s award of compensation.

Section 38 Act 286 provides – “(1) Any objection made under section 37 shall be made by a written application in Form N to the Land Administrator requiring that he refer the matter to the Court for its determination, and a copy thereof shall be forwarded by the Land Administrator to the Registrar of the Court.

Every application under subsection (1) shall state fully the grounds on which objection to the award is taken, and at any hearing in Court no other grounds shall be given in argument, without leave of the Court…”

This provision mandates that all objections must be specifically stated in Form N, and no additional grounds may subsequently be introduced except with the leave of the Court. In Damansara Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pemungut Hasil Tanah Petaling [1992] 2 MLJ 660, Harun Hashim SCJ explained at 664 – “On a plain reading of s 38(2), we are of the opinion that the door is not completely shut for an objector to make a fresh claim or raise a new ground of objection to an award of the Collector in the course of the reference proceedings which he had failed to do at the inquiry before the Collector under s 12 of the Act or in the application for reference to the court under s 38(1) of the Act. The objector must, however, obtain the leave of the court before he can do so. In view of s 45(2) of the Act which provides: Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act, the leave of the court is obtained by making a separate application to the court supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the additional grounds of objection in accordance with the Rules of the High Court 1980 for such application as a preliminary step before the hearing of the actual reference.”

In Pamol Plantations Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Kluang [2009] MLJU 1561, Hue Siew Kheng JC (as Her Ladyship then was) held “The only requirement imposed was that an affidavit in support explaining the reasons for the additional grounds of objection had to be filed as a preliminary step before the hearing of the actual reference It would appear that as long as sufficient reasons are shown, leave should be granted.”

The jurisprudence distilled from the foregoing authorities firmly establishes the following propositions –

this Court retains a discretionary power to grant leave to raise additional grounds of objection;

(ii) the Applicant bears the burden of providing sufficient reasons, supported by affidavit, for not having included such grounds earlier; and where sufficient reasons are established, leave ought to be granted. Sufficient reasons?

Guided by these authorities, this Court perused the Applicant’s reasons namely that –

the omission to include the new grounds was not deliberate but a professional oversight by the former valuer; and

(ii) they had acted promptly upon obtaining fresh advice from their new valuer.

As pointed out by the Respondent, there has been a lapse of more than 2 years for the Applicant to make these new heads of claim for compensation.

Further, there has been a delay of more than 1 year since the Applicant’s objections were brought to the High Court. This inordinate delay on the Applicant’s part has disrupted the timely hearing and disposal of this Land Reference.

The reasons given by the Applicant are insufficient. This Court declines to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant as