Secondly, learned ALA argued that no application was made to change the category of land use up to the date of the publication of the acquisition in the Gazette. The learned judge had made a finding of fact that the acquired lands were ‘tanah kategori bangunan dengan syarat nyata pembinaan bangunan mengikut JPBD Negeri Selangor. The Government valuer had considered the planning papers of MPS and found that the acquired lands were zoned as residential and water reservoir. As such the learned judge rightly rejected the appellant’s contention that the category of the land use was commercial. DECISION [11] In our considered view, the present appeals emanate from the application filed by the appellant in Form N objecting to the amount of compensation. A perusal of the Forms N in question shows that the appellant’s objection is only in regard to the amount of compensation (see para. 3 above). In fact, the appellant’s claim before the High Court and this Court is for a higher compensation premised on the category of land use of the acquired lands being commercial as opposed to residential. Accordingly, we agree with the submission of learned ALA and hold that the appeal is precluded under s 40D of the LAA 1960. Page 8 of 9 [12] Even if the appellant’s appeal is not barred under s 40D, the burden of proof was on the appellants to establish that the category of land use of the acquired lands was commercial and this they failed to do. The appellant’s argument that the annual rates levied by the State Authority on the acquired lands demonstrate that the annual rates were calculated and levied based on commercial zoning is without merit. Even if the annual rates were based on commercial zoning, the fact remains that it is for the appellant to prove that fact. At any rate, the law is clear. The express conditions endorsed on the issue document of title to the acquired lands clearly states that the construction of buildings must be in accordance with JPBD zoning. On the record, we are satisfied that apart from this bare assertion, the appellant did not furnish any supporting evidence to back up their case. The applications in Forms N were brought by the appellant and pursuant to para. 2(1) of the Third Schedule (Evidence and Procedure in Land Reference Cases) to the LAA 1960, it is clearly stipulated that the appellant’s valuer’s report alone must establish a prima facie case for the appellant. As the appellant has failed to establish a prima facie case, it is accordingly not open to the appellant to argue that it is for the respondent to prove otherwise. We have perused the appeal record and are satisfied that the learned judge and the assessors have considered all the relevant factors in coming to the decision. We are not persuaded that the learned judge committed any appealable error in law. Page 9 of 9 [13] For the foregoing reasons, we found no merits in the issues raised by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed with costs. sgd (Vernon Ong) Judge Court Of Appeal Malaysia Dated : 25th January 2018 Counsel: For the Appellant : Robert Lazar (Lai Wai Fong and Mohd Saiful Hadi with him) Messrs Ainul Azam & Co. For the Respondent: Etty Eliany Tesno (Naziah Mokhtar with her) Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor