KP ASLI SDN. BHD. v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak (BA-15-129-05/2024)

This is a land reference arising from the compulsory land acquisition Projek Laluan Rel Pantai Timur (ECRL), Seksyen C2, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor. 29/05/2025 10:46:31 Kand. 20

At the end of the hearing, this court, with the assistance of two assessors, maintained the compensation awarded by the Land Administrator. This is the judgment for the reasons of this court in coming to that decision.

Dissatisfied with the decision of this court, the Applicant filed an

Pertaining to appeals in land reference, subsection 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 19 provides: person or corporation on whose behalf the proceedings were instituted may appeal from a decision of the Court to the Court of Appeal and to the Federal Court: Provided that where the decision comprises an award of compensation there shall be no appeal therefrom [Emphasis added]

Based on the provision of subsection 49(1) of the LAA, no appeal can be lodged against a decision on the amount of compensation.

The Applicant is the registered proprietor of the Scheduled Land which was given notice of the acquisition in Form A in the Selangor State Gazette No.3180 dated 23.12.2021 pursuant to section 4 of the LAA.

The Scheduled Land which was declared for intended acquisition by way of publication LAA.

The Respondent, on 18.12.2023 awarded to the Applicant a sum of RM 2,020,590.22 for the acquisition of the Scheduled Land Award Amount (RM) Scheduled Land (3992 sm) + Portion B (2153 sm) (RM 270 x 6145 sm) Compensation as per the title and/or to KP Asli Sdn Bhd Compensation to Chargor (Orix Credit Malaysia Sdn Bhd) 1,659,150.00 1,347,390.00 311,759.78 Injurious Affection (Portion A) 15% from value of the land (RM 40 x 1955 sm) 78,200.00 Structure/Building Garage 1: RM 35,000.00 Garage 2: RM 25,000.00 Office : RM 205,000.00 265,000.00 Disturbance of Income (RM 55,000.00 x 6 months) 330,000.00 TOTAL 2,020,590.22

The Applicant on 26.12.2023 filed Form N, objecting to the amount of compensation awarded by the Respondent.

The Federal Constitution in Article 13 guarantees a person to a right to property which reads: law.

No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property [11] The law and proceedings relating to land acquisition are governed by the LAA. This is a special Act which provisions must be strictly adhered to. [12] In Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd v. Inch Kenneth Kajang Rubber Ltd & Anor Other Appeals [2011] 4 MLJ 403, the Court of Appeal 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 [13] Section 14 of the LAA makes provision that awards of compensation for compulsory acquisition are assessed and decided on by a land administrator. [14] 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:

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 d [15] 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. [16] For ease of reference, section 37 of the LAA is reproduced below:

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 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). [17] 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: 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 [18] Founded on these legal principles, this court considered this land reference. Analysis and Findings [19] At the land reference proceedings, this court was assisted by a government assessor, Encik Mohd Haris Bin Yop from Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta Malaysia [Report is in Annexure A], and a private assessor, Encik Azman bin Mamat of Nilai Harta Consultant Sdn Bhd [Report is in Annexure B]. [20] The Applicant's objections and submissions in relation to compensation for the acquisition are summarised below:

compensation provided by the Respondent for severance with regards to the damage to the balance of land (Portion A) (Subject to Paragraph 2 (d) of First Schedule of the LAA).

(ii) compensation for the damage to replace the involved building is inadequate to accommodate the reconstruction of the LAA).

(iii) compensation provided for the affected business, particularly concerning operational costs such as lorry expenses and-month period is insufficient without to Paragraph 2(e) of First Schedule of the LAA).

Compensation provided by the Respondent for severance with regards to the damage to the balance of land (Portion A) resulting from its of First Schedule of the LAA). [21] The remaining land (after acquisition) measures 3,819.00 square meters and is triangular in shape. [22] The applicant's claim regarding severance can be made under Paragraph 2(c), First Schedule of the LAA, which provides for compensation in cases where the remainder of the land is adversely affected by the acquisition. However, the claim is made under paragraph 2 (d) of the First Schedule of the LAA. Paragraph 2 (d) of the First Schedule of the LAA makes no reference to damage by severance. [23] valuer in compensation for the remaining portion, suggesting that its value has been substantially diminished due to its shape, usability, or accessibility following the partial acquisition. The valuer argues that the remaining land is uneconomical due to its triangular shape and narrowness, which makes it difficult for lorries to make turning manoeuvres. This court observes that the Scheduled Land is agriculture land with the express condition of fruit cultivation. The Applicant however, utilised the Scheduled Land for transportation and a transit hub for the distribution of chicken. The alleged difficulty with the lorries ought not to happen if the Scheduled Land was utilised according to the category of land and express condition. [24] The Applicant would be required to use an alternative route. It is observed that the concessionaire, Malaysia Rail Link at the land inquiry had stated that MRL will provide access to the remaining land for the Applicant to replace the existing road. Hence, with to the remaining land, the Applicant will still be able to access the remaining land from the existing road. This argument therefore lacks merit. [25] Pertaining to the submission that there is increased cost of land filling, it is the view of this court that this claim is not substantiated. Whether the acquisition occurs or not, the remaining land remains in its original condition. Therefore, there is no basis for additional costs such as land filling or piling.

(ii) Compensation for the damage to replace the involved building is inadequate to accommodate the reconstruction of the building pursuant 2(e) of First Schedule of the LAA). [26] For this objection by the Applicant, the Applicant had sought a claim amounting to RM580,200.00. This amount was made up of RM70,000.00 for Garage 1, RM58,100.00 for Garage 2 and RM452,100.00 for the Office building. The Government Valuer did not value the buildings and structures. The Respondent awarded the Applicant a total of RM265,000.00. [27] conducting a transportation hub or a transit for the distribution of chicken. This was the business conducted by the Applicant. [28] The Applicant argued that pursuant to Paragraph 2(e) of the First Schedule of the LAA, the compensation will also be assessed based on the expenses to be incurred by the landowner in the event the same is compelled to change his place of business as a result of the acquisition under the LAA. [29] The Applicant submitted that in line with the principle of equivalence, the Applicant is entitled to fair compensation and should be restored to the position it was in prior to the acquisition, as though it had never taken place. Accordingly, the Applicant should not be compelled to relocate its business premises, nor should it bear any incidental costs arising from such a relocation. [30] The facts of this land reference is that Scheduled Land use is agriculture with the express condition the Scheduled Land is for fruit cultivation. [31] Pertaining to the value of buildings on a land to be acquired, the LAA in the First Schedule at paragraph 3A provides:

The value of any building on any land to be acquired shall be disregarded if that building is not permitted by virtue of

the category of land use; or

an express or implied condition or restriction, to which the land is subject or deemed to be subject under the State land law. [32] The current use of the land as a transportation or transit hub is in direct contravention of the express condition, which stipulates that the land is to be used solely for agricultural purposes, specifically for the cultivation of fruit trees. Any use of the Scheduled Land that deviates from this condition is considered non-compliant of the express conditions of land use. The transport or transit hub activity contradicts the express condition of the land, which is designated for fruit cultivation. [33] Furthermore, section 127 of the National Land Code 1965 prohibits the use of land for any purpose that is inconsistent with the express or implied conditions of title, unless prior approval or conversion has been obtained. The current unauthorised use of the land therefore breaches statutory land use regulations. [34] This court further observed that the Valuer failed to provide any documentation or official approval letters from the relevant local authority (Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan) for the buildings or structures erected on the land. This raises serious concerns regarding the legality and compliance of the developments with local planning and building regulations. [35] The express condition attached to the land title is legally binding and applies to all activities conducted on the Scheduled Land. This means any use or development of the land must strictly adhere to the specified land use stated in the title, and failure to comply constitutes a breach. In other words, the express condition legally binds all activities conducted on the Scheduled Land. [36] This court therefore finds that the buildings erected by the Applicant is in contravention of the category of land use and the express condition stated in the title. In this regard, First Schedule at paragraph 3A of the LAA provides that the value of a building on land being acquired will be excluded if the building is not allowed set by State land law. As the buildings on the Scheduled Land is in contravention of the category of land us and the express conditions, this court did not allow this claim for the buildings on the Scheduled Land. The award of the Respondent is therefore maintained.

(iii) The compensation provided for the affected business, particularly concern salaries for a six-month period is insufficient without referring to the cost Schedule of the LAA). [37] submitted a claim amounting to RM523,559.00 for operational costs associated with business disruption, specifically relating to lorry expenses and employee salaries over a six-month period. However, no supporting documents or proof of actual payments were provided in the valuation report to substantiate the claim. The amount appears to [38] In light of this, the Land Administrator had assessed the claim and awarded a reduced compensation of RM330,000.00 for the loss of income due to business disturbance. [39] This court is satisfied that the Applicant failed to prove the claims for operational costs associated with business disruption, specifically relating to lorry expenses and employee salaries over a six-month period. It is the considered view of this court that the compensation of RM330,000.00 awarded by the Respondent ought to be maintained. Conclusion [40] 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:

All other claims for severance, damage to the buildings, replacement of buildings and operational costs associated with business disruption are not allowed;

(ii) The other awards of the Land Administrator are maintained;

(iii) The Deposit is returned to the Applicant; and

(iv) The Applicant is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Date: 27 May 2025 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: For the Appellant: Amit Singh Penesar Tetuan Teja Singh Penesar & Co Advocates & Solicitors 27, Jalan Zainul Abidin, 10400 George Town, Pulau Pinang 04-226 9270 For the Respondent: Nur Syafinaz Hayati binti Kamarrudin Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor. LAPORAN PENGAPIT HAKIM KERAJAAN RUJUKAN TANAH NO: BA-15-129-05/2024 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM PENGAMBILAN TANAH BAGI TUJUAN PROJEK LALUAN REL PANTAI TIMUR (ECRL) DAERAH GOMBAK NEGERI SELANGOR (SEKSYEN C2 TAMBAHAN) LOT PT 17682 (15282) HSM 6966 MUKIM RAWANG DAERAH GOMBAK NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ANTARA KP ASLI SDN. BHD. ... PEMOHON LAWAN PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH GOMBAK ... RESPONDEN Yang Arif Hakim : YA Hakim Dr. Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman Pengapit Kerajaan : Sr Mohd Haris Bin Yop Pengapit Swasta : Azman Bin Mamat Pemohon : KP Asli Sdn. Bhd. Responden : Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak Peguam Pemohon : Tetuan Teja Singh Penesar & Co Penasihat Undang-Undang Responden : Yang Berhormat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Penilai Pemohon : Sr Azuan Bin Abu Mansol Mac Real International Sdn. Bhd. Penilai Responden : Zulkefli Bin Mohd Noor Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta, Gombak, Selangor ANNEXURE A Dengan Izin Yang Arif,

1.0 FAKTA KES Pengambilan Tanah Di Bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (Akta 486) Bagi Tujuan Projek Laluan Rel Pantai Timur (ECRL), Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor (Seksyen C2 Tambahan) Di dalam Borang N yang difailkan oleh Pemohon dalam kes RUJUKAN TANAH NO: BA-15-129-05/2024 yang menyatakan perkara berikut:- Bil. Perkara Fakta Kes 1.1 Asas Rujukan (Rayuan) i. Pampasan Pentadbir terhadap penjejasan pecah pisah tanah baki akibat kerosakan bentuk segi tiga terlalu rendah serta tidak munasabah. ii. Bayaran pampasan ke atas kerosakan bagi menggantikan bangunan terlibat tidak mencukupi bagi menampung pembinaan semula bangunan tersebutr merujuk kepada Principle of Equivallent/ iii. Tuntutan pampasan bagi kos operasi penjejasan perniagaan terhadap lori serta gaji pekerja selama 6 bulan tidak diberikan pertimbangan sewajarnya dengan hanya membuat andaian tanpa merujuk kepada kos pasaran semasa.

1.2 Pemilik Berdaftar

KP Asli Sdn. Bhd. (1/1 bahagian) 3 Pihak Berkepentingan (Agensi Pengambil)

Rail Link Sdn. Bhd. (MRL) 4 Pengistiharan Warta Telah diwartakan melalui Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 3180 pada 23.12.2021 di bawah Seksyen 4 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 dan juga Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 252 pada 12.01.2023 di bawah Seksyen 8.

1.5 Tarikh Nilaian 12.01.2023 di bawah Seksyen 8 1.6

0.8100 hektar (8,100.00 meter persegi)

1.7

Luas Tanah Diambil 0.3992 hektar (3,992.00 meter persegi) 8

0.1955 hektar (1,955.00 meter persegi)

0.2153 hektar (2,153.00 meter persegi)

1.9 Pegangan

Pajakan 99 tahun (baki pajakan 73 tahun) 10 Kegunaan Tanah Pertanian 1.11 Syarat Nyata Tanaman buah-buahan

1.12 Sekatan Kepentingan Tanah ini tidak boleh dipindahmilik, dipajak atau digadai melainkan setelah mendapat kebenaran Pihak Berkuasa Negeri 1.13 Kawasan Rizab Tiada 1.14 Bebanan Sepertimana dinyatakan di dalam hakmilik 1.15 Kemajuan Tapak Tanah kosong 1.16

2.0 PERBEZAAN FAKTA LAPORAN PENILAIAN RESPONDEN LAPORAN PENILAIAN PEMOHON Bil. Perkara Penilai Responden Penilai Pemohon Award Pentadbir Tanah 2.1 Tanah Nilai Pasaran Para 2 (a) Diambil : 3,992 m.p. @ RM250 s.m.p. (RM23.23 s.k.p.) Jumlah : RM998,000.00 Diambil : 3,992 m.p. @ RM270 s.m.p. (RM25.09 s.k.p.) Jumlah : RM1,074,250.00 Pindaan Diambil : 6,145 m.p. @ RM270 s.m.p. (RM25.09 s.k.p.) Jumlah : RM1,659,150.00 2.2 Bangunan : Struktur Binaan Tiada RM580,200.00 RM265,000.00 2.3 Kenaikan Nilai Para 2 (b) Tiada Tiada Tiada 2.4 Pecah Pisah Para 2 (c) Tanah Baki A 1,955 m.p. @ RM250 s.m.p. (RM23.23 s.k.p.) (5% kadar tanah) Jumlah : Tanah Baki B 2,153 m.p. @ RM250 s.m.p. (RM23.23 s.k.p.) (5% kadar tanah) Jumlah : Jumlah Keseluruhan : Tanah Baki 3,819 m.p. @ RM270 s.m.p. (RM25.09 s.k.p.) (80% kadar tanah)

2.5 Kesan Mudarat Para 2 (d) Tanah Baki A 1,955 m.p. @ RM250 s.m.p. (RM23.23 s.k.p.) (5% kadar tanah) Jumlah : Tiada Tanah Baki A Tanah Baki B 2,153 m.p. @ RM250 s.m.p. (RM23.23 s.k.p.) (5% kadar tanah)

2.6 Kos Sampingan - Para 2 (e) Tiada Tiada Tiada 2.7 Kerja Pemulihan - Para 2 (f) Tiada Tiada Tiada 2.8 Lain-Lain Tuntutan Tiada Kos Lori RM241,949.00 Kos Gaji RM281,610.00 Jumlah : RM523,559.00 Gangguan Pendapatan RM55,000.00 sbln @ 6 bulan Jumlah Keseluruhan RM1,100,700.00 RM3,538,074.00 RM2,332,350.00 Nota : Tawaran pampasan Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak berdasarkan catatan nota bicara Borang G dan Borang H.

3.0 ULASAN DAN PENDAPAT PENGAPIT KERAJAAN Yang Arif, Berdasarkan kepada semua maklumat terhad dan fakta yang telah dikemukakan oleh Penilai Pemohon dan Penilai Responden sebagaimana yang dilampirkan di dalam Laporan-Laporan Penilaian dan Hujahan Bertulis, maka perkara-perkara berikut adalah diambilkira di dalam merumuskan pendapat dan pertimbangan yang akan diberikan oleh saya sebagai Pengapit Kerajaan.

3.1 Kaedah Penilaian Saya bersetuju dengan kedua-dua penilai bahawa kaedah penilaian terbaik adalah Kaedah Perbandingan dengan pelarasan terhadap faktor ketidaksamaan. Tiada kaedah penilaian lain digunakan oleh kedua-dua penilai. Peruntukan Perenggan 1(1A) Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 menyatakan :- -mana tanah dijadualkan, penilai boleh menggunakan apa-apa cara penilaian yang sesuai pada nilai pasaran untuk mencapai nilai pasaran itu, dengan syarat perhatian hendaklah diberi kepada kira harga yang dibayar bagi penjualan terkini tanah yang mempunyai ciri-ciri yang serupa sebagaimana tanah dijadualkan dan bahawa pertimbangan khusus hendaklah diberi terhadap transaksi terakhir mengenai tanah dijadualkan dalam masa dua tahun dari tarikh yang disebut bagi tanah yang dijadualkan itu hendak .

3.2 Kategori Kegunaan & Syarat Nyata Kategori kegunaan tanah lot subjek adalah pertanian dengan syarat nyatanya adalah tanaman dusun.

3.3 Tarikh Nilaian Saya bersetuju dengan pendapat kedua-kedua Penilai bahawasanya tarikh nilaian adalah berdasarkan pada tarikh warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 252 iaitu pada 12.1.2023 di bawah Seksyen 8.

3.4 Tuntutan Nilai Tanah Saya telah menyemak isu-isu yang telah dibangkitkan oleh Penilai Pemohon dan mendapati bahawa tiada tuntutan di buat ke atas nilai tanah yakni pemohon bersetuju dengan award yang diberikan oleh Pentadbir Tanah seperti mana yang telah disyorkan oleh Penilai Pemohon iaitu pada kadar RM270.00 s.m.p. (RM25.09 s.k.p.) dengan jumlah pampasan keseluruhan tanah adalah RM1,659,150.00 berdasarkan rekod di dalam Borang G Award Pampasan Bertulis dan Borang H Notis Award Dan Tawaran Pampasan bertarikh 18 Disember 2023.

3.5 Keluasan Baki Tanah Saya telah meneliti laporan yang disediakan oleh kedua-dua penilai dan saya telah mendapati bahawa terdapat kesilapan penerangan berkaitan bahagian tanah baki A dan B seperti mana yang dinyatakan oleh Penilai Pemohon. Kesilapan penandaan tanah baki untuk bahagian A dan B boleh dirujuk pada Encl. No. 6 Laporan Penilaian Pemohon pada muka surat 7. Perkara yang sama juga telah di semak silang dengan Encl. No. 7 Laporan Penilaian Responden di bahagian Pelan Tapak & Pengambilan dan Encl. No. 2 Laporan Rujukan Ke Mahkamah pada