MARSHILAH BINTI ISMAIL v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Melaka Tengah (MA-15-7-06/2024)

This is a land reference under Part V of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 arising from an objection to the Land Administrator's award in respect of the compulsory acquisition of part of Lot 4049, GMM 1624, Mukim Ayer Molek, Daerah Melaka Tengah, Melaka for the Sungai Duyong Flood Mitigation Project. The objection is directed to the measurement of the land and the amount of compensation.

The legality of the acquisition does not arise. The real controversy is whether the award adequately reflects compensation recoverable four matters: the correct market value of the 30 square metres acquired, the adequacy of the award for the affected ancillary structures, whether injurious affection to the remaining land or the dwelling has been proved, and whether the further consequential claims fall within the statute and are supported by evidence.

That issue matters because a land reference is not an invitation to reassess compensation at large. The court's function is confined to determining whether the statutory award is inadequate by reference to the heads of compensation recognised by the Act, the evidence adduced, and the governing principles of valuation and proof.

The reference was heard with the aid of assessors. Their role is important but not determinative. The judicial responsibility to decide the amount of compensation remains that of the court. The assessor reports in this case are useful because they identify the true points of controversy and narrow the areas in which the award may realistically be disturbed. One assessor recommends only a limited increase for land value. The other recommends maintaining the land rate awarded but increasing compensation for the structures and two minor incidental items.

Before turning to the issues, it is convenient to record that the appellant's evidence comprises, in addition to the principal valuation materials, an Additional Affidavit affirmed on 21 May 2026 (Enclosure 55) exhibiting the approved building plan referred to in Lampiran E of Kandungan 10 and recent photographs of the dwelling and the affected portion of the lot marked as Exhibit MI-2. That material forms part of the record at this hearing and is considered together with the other evidence. The case can and should be decided on narrow grounds, by reference to the heads of compensation recognised by the Act, the evidence adduced, and the governing principles of valuation and proof.

The subject property is Lot 4049, GMM 1624, Mukim Ayer Molek, Daerah Melaka Tengah, Melaka. It is a residential lot measuring 450 square metres, fronting Jalan Ayer Molek-Tiang Dua, in a mixed residential and village environment. The appellant is the owner of the land and of the structures standing on it.

The acquisition was for the Sungai Duyong Flood Mitigation Project. The section 4 notification was gazetted on 26 January 2023 and the section 8 declaration on 8 June 2023. The valuation date is therefore 26 January 2023.

The area acquired was 30 square metres, leaving 420 square metres as the balance land. The affected portion lay at the northern part of the lot and involved land together with ancillary structures described in the materials as a store and an anjung or drying area. The main dwelling house was not acquired.

An inquiry was held before the Land Administrator on 17 January 2024. The award made thereafter was RM40,676.45, comprising RM10,950.00 for land at RM365 per square metre, RM28,404.45 for the store and terrace structures, RM50.00 for attendance, and RM1,272.00 for valuer's fees. No award was made for injurious affection, reinstatement works, temporary rental, or relocation.

The appellant's valuation materials advanced a substantially larger claim. Land value was put at RM390 per square metre, the affected structures at RM45,500.00, injurious affection at RM254,835.00 incidental costs at RM11,600.00, recovery cost at RM1,400.00, and valuation fee at RM2,484.00, yielding a total claim of RM327,519.00.

The evidential basis of that enlarged claim may be stated shortly. The appellant's affidavit and valuation materials describe the works as now being too close to the rear portion of the dwelling, causing loss of amenity, inadequate setback, difficulty in using or developing the remaining land, and depreciation to the residential building. The private valuation also relies on larger measurements for the store and ancillary terrace area than those adopted by the government valuer.

The government valuation adopted RM360 per square metre for land, RM26,000.00 for the affected structures, and no further heads of compensation. The Land Administrator awarded slightly more for land and for the structures than the government valuation had recommended.

The private assessor's report recommends a total compensation of RM48,420.00. That report maintains land value at RM365 per square metre, recommends averaging the structure valuations to RM35,750.00, rejects injurious affection and most incidental heads, but recommends RM100.00 for court attendance and RM1,620.00 for valuation fee.

The government assessor's report recommends a much narrower intervention. It accepts that the adjusted land comparables support a range between RM360.00 and RM390.00 per square metre and recommends that RM390.00 per square metre be considered for the acquired land, but otherwise rejects the claims for the structures, injurious affection, and the further incidental heads. Its net recommendation is an additional RM750.00 only.

In addition to the principal affidavit and valuation materials, the appellant relies on an Additional Affidavit affirmed on 21 May 2026. The salient averments are these. First, the appellant relies on the approved building plan annexed as Lampiran E to the private valuation report (Kandungan 10) and asserts that the dwelling was constructed in compliance with a setback condition imposed by the local authority of not less than 6.0 metres or 20 feet from the boundary, without which the plan would not have been approved. Second, she asserts that, as a consequence of the works carried out for the project, the existing setback no longer meets that condition. Third, she contends that the resulting non-compliance affects the original building plan approval and the availability of insurance cover, including fire and building insurance, and causes diminution in value. Fourth, recent photographs exhibited as Exhibit MI-2 are said to show cracking to the structure of the dwelling.

The court has examined the exhibited photographs. Two features are apparent. The works form a deep concrete drainage channel running immediately adjacent to the dwelling, materially closer than the surrounding amenity space depicted in earlier photographs. There is also visible cracking on the external arch and along the wall corners of the dwelling. That material has been taken into account in the analysis below. It is, however, important to identify with precision what it does and does not establish. C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The issues for determination are:

whether there remains any material dispute as to the measurement of the acquired land;

what is the proper market value of the 30 square metres acquired as at 26 January 2023;

whether the award for the affected store and ancillary terrace structures is inadequate;

whether compensable injurious affection to the balance land or to the residential building has been proved under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule, having regard to the further material in the Additional Affidavit affirmed on 21 May 2026; and

whether the further claims for recovery or reinstatement, temporary rental, moving costs, attendance, and valuation fee ought to be increased. D. STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK [18] The reference proceeds under sections 36 to 49 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. Section 37 permits objection to the measurement of the land and to the amount of compensation. Section 38 requires that the grounds of objection be stated in Form N and confines the later argument to those grounds unless leave is granted. Section 44 restricts the inquiry to the interests affected by the objection. Sections 40A to 40D deal with assessors. Section 47 requires the court's award to specify, among other things, the amount awarded for market value and the amounts, if any, awarded under paragraphs 2(c), (d) and (e) of the First Schedule, together with the grounds for them. Sections 48 and 51 deal respectively with late payment charges and costs. [19] The First Schedule is central. Paragraph 1 defines market value by reference to the date of publication of the section 4 notification, provided it is followed by a section 8 declaration within twelve months. Paragraph 1(1A) permits any suitable method of valuation and expressly allows regard to be had to recent sales of lands with similar characteristics in the vicinity. Paragraph 1(1B) directs that where only part of the land is acquired, market value is determined by reference to the whole land shown on the title after regard is had to the particular features of the part taken. Paragraph 1(2A) provides that in assessing the market value of scheduled land which is Malay reservation land, a Malay holding, or customary land in Malacca, that character is not to be taken into account except where the acquired land will be devoted solely to a purpose benefiting those eligible to hold such land. Paragraph 2 then exhaustively states the matters to be considered, including market value, severance, injurious affection, reasonable expenses incidental to a compelled change of residence or place of business, and certain undertakings benefiting the land left unacquired. Paragraph 3 sets out matters to be disregarded. [20] Three legal propositions follow from that framework. [21] First, the court must remain within the statutory heads of compensation. The Act does not authorise compensation for every inconvenience or dissatisfaction arising from a public project. The question is not whether the appellant feels worse off after the acquisition, but whether the loss claimed falls within paragraph 2 of the First Schedule and is proved on the evidence. [22] Secondly, where market value is in issue, the comparison method will ordinarily be the best method for ordinary residential land where suitable comparables exist, because it ties valuation to actual market transactions rather than abstract reconstruction. That is also the common ground of the valuation evidence in this case. [23] Thirdly, the burden lies on the party challenging the award to show that it is inadequate. That proposition is reflected in Ong Yan & Anor v Collector of Land Revenue, Alor Gajah, Malacca [1986] 1 MLJ 405, and remains consistent with the later treatment of land references in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and another case [2017] 3 MLJ 561. The point is not technical. A land reference begins from an existing statutory award. The burden therefore lies on the person seeking to disturb it to adduce evidence showing why it should not stand. [24] The significance of Semenyih Jaya in the present context is different but equally important. It establishes that judicial power to determine compensation lies in the court, not in the assessors. The assessor reports are relevant and often valuable. They do not decide the case. That position is reinforced by Tegas Sejati Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah Hulu Langat & Anor and another appeal [2024] 3 MLJ 329, which confirms the procedural importance of written assessor opinions. What the court must do is evaluate those opinions and decide for itself. E. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION

Measurement [25] Although the objection included measurement, no real controversy remains on that point. Across the award, the valuation materials, and both assessor reports, the area acquired is consistently treated as 30 square metres and the balance land as 420 square metres. Nothing in the evidential record provides a rational basis for disturbing that figure. The true dispute lies elsewhere. It concerns the value to be attributed to the land and structures taken, and the legal sufficiency of the further heads claimed.

Market value of the acquired land [26] The principal issue is whether the Land Administrator's figure of RM365.00 per square metre should stand, or whether the evidence justifies RM390.00 per square metre. [27] Both valuers adopted the comparison method. That was correct. The land is ordinary residential land, there are recent nearby transactions, and no one suggests that a residual or investment method is more appropriate. The dispute is therefore not methodological. It concerns the choice and adjustment of the comparables. [28] The government assessor's report is particularly useful on this part of the case because it revisits the comparables used by both sides and provides adjusted figures for three of them. It identifies Lot 15945 as the best common comparable and arrives, after adjustment, at RM375.00 per square metre. It also adjusts Lot 4042, one of the appellant's comparables, to RM390.00 per square metre, and PT 4831, one of the respondent's comparables, to RM360.00 per square metre. On that basis, it concludes that the adjusted range is RM360.00 to RM390.00 per square metre and recommends that the appellant's rate of RM390.00 be considered. [29] Once that is so, the Land Administrator's figure of RM365.00 per square metre cannot be treated as insulated merely because it falls within the range. A point within a range is not self-justifying. The court must still ask whether it is the better reflection of market value on the evidence. [30] The respondent's lower figure of RM360.00 rests on the adjusted PT 4831 comparable. The appellant's figure of RM390.00 rests principally on the adjusted Lot 4042 comparable. Both are recent and both are in Ayer Molek. The question is whether there is a principled reason to prefer one over the other. [31] In my judgment, there is. Lot 4042 was transacted on 18 October 2022, less than three months before the valuation date. The government assessor treated the time adjustment as zero, which is rational given that short interval. The report then adjusted location at -15%, road access at +5%, size at -5%, and, crucially, customary land status at +20%, producing RM390.90 per square metre, rounded to RM390.00. [32] The +20% adjustment for customary land status calls for analysis but does not, on principle, present any difficulty. It is not a speculative adjustment. Paragraph 1(2A) of the First Schedule requires the market value of the scheduled land to be assessed without regard to the fact that a comparable is customary land, save where the statutory exception applies. Where a comparable bears a tenure restriction that the subject land does not, the adjustment process must neutralise that restriction so that the comparison is between like and like. Without such neutralisation, the comparison would understate the value of the unrestricted subject land. The +20% adjustment is therefore a necessary equivalence adjustment, not an empirical estimate of market discount. [33] The remaining question is one of degree. Here the government assessor, having revisited the comparables across both sides, adopted +20% for the customary land restriction in relation to Lot 4042 and still concluded that the appellant's RM390.00 figure lay within the defensible adjusted range. That is not merely a forensic assertion by the appellant. It is the view of the court-appointed government assessor after reworking the comparable. [34] The private assessor took a different approach. That report discarded the appellant's customary land comparables and regarded the scheduled land as open-titled land with no restrictions of Malay reservation or customary land, then maintained RM365.00 per square metre by relying mainly on Lot 15945. [35] The difficulty with that approach is not that Lot 15945 is unsuitable. It is plainly a useful common comparable. The difficulty is that the private assessor's report gives no compelling reason why the court should confine itself to that one comparable when another nearby and very recent comparable, after reasoned adjustment, points to RM390.00 and the government assessor has specifically accepted that the upper end of the range is supportable. [36] This is not to say that the highest point in an adjusted range must always prevail. It does not. The court must still be persuaded that the upper figure best reflects market value. In the present case, the temporal proximity of Lot 4042, its location in the same mukim, the logic of the adjustments applied, and the government assessor's own endorsement of the appellant's rate as still falling within the adjusted range together justify adopting RM390.00 per square metre rather than RM365.00 or RM360.00. [37] I therefore find that the proper market value for the acquired land is RM390.00 per square metre. For 30 square metres, compensation under this head is RM11,700.00. As the Land Administrator awarded RM10,950.00, the increase under this head is RM750.00.

The affected structures [38] The next issue is whether the award of RM28,404.45 for the store and ancillary terrace structures is inadequate. [39] Both valuers used a cost-based approach. That was appropriate. For small ancillary structures of this kind, cost less depreciation is a sensible method. The dispute is not one of principle but of factual input, especially the extent of the structures affected and the value to be attributed to them. [40] The appellant's private valuation placed this head at RM45,500.00. The respondent's valuation placed it at RM26,000.00. The Land Administrator awarded RM28,404.45. The private assessor recommended a compromise by averaging the two valuation figures to RM35,750.00. The government assessor, by contrast, regarded the Land Administrator's award as sufficient and recommended rejecting the appellant's figure. [41] The appellant's higher figure is not fanciful on its face. But the difficulty with it lies in the evidential foundation. The two valuers worked from materially different built-up areas. The private assessor expressly noted a glaring difference in the measurements, as well as an unresolved issue whether part of the structure extended into reserve land, though that encroachment was not verified by a licensed surveyor. Because of that uncertainty, that report recommended averaging the competing building values. [42] The government assessor took a firmer view. That report concluded that the private valuer's rate for the structures was too high having regard to the ordinary specifications of the buildings and preferred the respondent's dimensions because they were better supported by the photographs and plan tendered by the respondent's valuer. It then concluded that the Land Administrator's award of RM28,404.45 was sufficient. [43] In my judgment, the appellant has not shown sufficient reason to disturb the award under this head. Two features are decisive. [44] First, the higher valuation depends on larger dimensions which are not independently verified. The absence of independent survey verification is not merely formal. It matters because the dispute is precisely about the extent of the affected structures. [45] Secondly, even the assessor most sympathetic to increasing this head did not accept the appellant's figure. The private assessor recommended an average only because of the measurement uncertainty and the unresolved reserve-land issue. That is a pragmatic compromise, not a principled finding that the Land Administrator's figure was wrong. [46] The court's task is not to improve an award merely because a compromise figure can be fashioned. The question is whether inadequacy has been proved. On the present record, it has not. The appellant has shown that ancillary structures were affected. That is already reflected in the award. The appellant has not shown that the existing figure for those structures is legally or factually insufficient. The Additional Affidavit does not advance this head: it addresses the dwelling and the balance land, not the ancillary structures, and adds nothing on their measurements or specifications. The challenge under this head is therefore not made out.

Injurious affection [47] The most substantial component of the enlarged claim is injurious affection. The appellant claims RM49,140.00 for depreciation of the remaining land and RM205,695.00 for depreciation of the dwelling together RM254,835.00. [48] Paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule permits compensation for damage sustained or likely to be sustained at the time of taking possession by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the owner's other property in any other manner. The language is wide. But it is not unconfined. The damage must still be one that is legally cognisable, causally linked to the acquisition, and supported by evidence showing measurable impairment rather than mere dissatisfaction or inconvenience. [49] The point has some surface attraction on the facts. The photographs and affidavit material show that the works are now physically close to the rear portion of the dwelling. It is therefore unsurprising that the appellant says the property is less convenient or less pleasant than before. But that is not yet enough to satisfy paragraph 2(d). The statute compensates proved damage, not unease. [50] The claim as advanced rests on two related propositions. The first is that the remaining 420 square metres are no longer economic to develop because a 20-metre development distance from the river reserve must be deducted. The second is that the dwelling has suffered depreciation because it no longer complies with an asserted local authority setback condition of not less than 6.0 metres or 20 feet from the boundary, and has further sustained physical damage in the form of cracking. [51] These two propositions must now be considered against the Additional Affidavit and the materials it exhibits, and the analysis differs as between the balance land and the dwelling. [52] As to the remaining land, the government assessor expressly considered and rejected the contention that the balance land had become uneconomic. That report states that 420 square metres remain, that the acquisition has already taken into account the right of way of the river reserve, and that the remaining land is still economic for residential use and remains within its category of use as building land for residential purposes. [53] The private assessor reached the same substantive conclusion, though by a different route. That report states that the remaining land is still economical for its size and shape and rejects any award for injurious affection. [54] Against that stands only the assertion in the private valuer's own report that the remaining land should be treated as uneconomic after deducting a 20-metre development distance from the river reserve. What is missing is any planning or technical evidence showing that this asserted constraint actually governs the land, destroys its residential utility, or translates into measurable diminution in value. The Additional Affidavit does not cure that deficiency. It produces no town planning instrument, no determination by the local authority, and no other independent material showing that the remaining 420 square metres can no longer be lawfully built upon or that its development potential has been quantifiably reduced. The valuation assertion, standing alone, does not discharge the burden of proof. The claim for injurious affection to the balance land therefore fails. [55] The position in relation to the dwelling is materially different in light of the Additional Affidavit. Two new evidential strands now bear on the analysis. [56] The first is the approved building plan annexed as Lampiran E to Kandungan 10. That plan, issued by the local authority, depicts and reflects the layout of the dwelling as approved, together with the setback distance from the boundary. The appellant's averment that the plan was approved on the footing of a setback condition of not less than 6.0 metres or 20 feet is consistent with the plan itself. The respondent has not put forward any contrary evidence as to what the local authority required at the time of approval. To that limited extent there is now documentary support for the existence of a regulatory setback condition. That is more than a lay assertion; it is a constructive feature of the original approval. [57] The second is the body of photographs at Exhibit MI-2. They show three things relevant to paragraph 2(d). They show that the concrete drainage channel constructed under the project runs immediately adjacent to the dwelling, with the rear setback now visibly compressed. They show visible cracking on the external arch and along the wall corners of the dwelling. And they show the contemporaneous state of the balance land between the dwelling and the works. The photographs are not engineering evidence and they do not permit precise quantification of the damage. But they are not nothing. They demonstrate, in a manner the earlier record did not, that the physical condition of the dwelling has been affected and that the existing setback has been substantially reduced from what the approved plan contemplated. [58] What this material does, and what it does not, must be stated with care. It establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the works carried out under the project have brought the project boundary materially closer to the dwelling than the original approved setback distance, and that the dwelling now exhibits visible deterioration in the form of cracking on the external arch and along the wall corners, observed contemporaneously with the completion of the works. It does not establish, because there is no engineering evidence to do so, that the dwelling is structurally unsound or that the cracking is referable to any particular technical mechanism. Nor does the material establish the further matters asserted by the appellant that the local authority has invalidated the building plan approval, that any insurer has refused or cancelled cover, or that monetary diminution of the order of RM205,695.00 has occurred. On those points there is no corroborative evidence from the local authority, from any insurer, or from a structural engineer. [59] The relevant principle under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule may be shortly stated. The provision compensates damage "sustained or likely to be sustained" at the time of taking possession by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the owner's other property. Once compensable damage of that character has been established on the balance of probabilities, precise quantification need not attain mathematical certainty; it is sufficient that the court arrives at a reasoned figure on the available material. That is consistent with the approach reflected in Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang v Ong Gaik Kee [1983] 2 MLJ 35. The principle assists in quantification; it does not relieve a claimant of the antecedent burden of proving compensable damage. [60] Applying that approach, the compensable damage proved on the present record falls within a narrow but real compass. The construction of the drainage channel immediately adjacent to the dwelling, and the consequent compression of the rear setback, are matters apparent on the face of the photographs and are not in dispute. So too is the visible deterioration in the form of cracking that the photographs depict, and which is contemporaneous with the works. These features amount to observable physical impact on the dwelling and the loss of an amenity buffer that the dwelling previously enjoyed. They are also matters that a reasonable purchaser would be expected to perceive and to factor into market valuation. To that extent paragraph 2(d) damage is established: there is a perceptible reduction in the residential amenity of the dwelling and a measurable adverse effect on its market perception, both proximately referable to the acquisition. The award under this head is confined to that compensable impairment. It does not extend to compensation for structural defect, regulatory non-compliance, or uninsurability, none of which has been proved. [61] In quantifying that compensable impairment, the court has regard to the modest scale of the dwelling, the limited extent of the visible deterioration depicted in the photographs, the proximity of the drainage channel to the building line, and the consequent reduction in residential amenity and market perception. The court also has regard to the principle that a paragraph 2(d) award should be measured and not speculative, and that the absence of engineering evidence and of corroborative material from the local authority and any insurer precludes any larger or structural award. Weighing those matters, the court assesses compensation under this head at RM15,000.00. That sum reflects a fair and conventional allowance for the diminished amenity and observable physical impact established on the present record, and no more. [62] There is a further difficulty with the claim as originally pleaded. The two components of the injurious affection claim substantially overlap. Both rest on the same underlying premise, namely that a 20-metre river reserve setback renders the remaining land and the dwelling materially compromised. The Act does not permit double compensation for the same underlying loss merely because it is described separately as loss to land and loss to building. That concern is met by the present analysis: the claim for injurious affection to the balance land is rejected, and the award for injurious affection to the dwelling is confined to the discrete impairment proved by the Additional Affidavit, namely the reduced setback and the visible cracking, and not to any double-counted asserted constraint on development of the balance land. [63] The court therefore rejects the claim for injurious affection to the remaining land and allows the claim for injurious affection to the dwelling in the limited measure of RM15,000.00 explained above.

Recovery, temporary rental, moving costs, attendance and valuation fee [64] The remaining claims can be dealt with more shortly. [65] The recovery or reinstatement claim of RM1,400.00 was advanced for maintenance of ornamental and fruit trees. Neither assessor accepted it. The private assessor rejected it because the acquisition involved only part of the store and anjung. The government assessor rejected it because no supporting proof was produced. I agree. The evidential basis for this claim is absent. [66] The claims for temporary rental and moving costs fail for a more straightforward reason. Paragraph 2(e) compensates reasonable expenses incidental to a compelled change of residence or place of business. The main dwelling was not acquired. There is no evidence that the appellant was or would be compelled to move out. Both assessor reports reject these heads on that basis. That conclusion is plainly correct. The Additional Affidavit does not alter that position: it does not aver, much less establish, that the appellant has been compelled to vacate the dwelling. [67] As to attendance cost, the Land Administrator awarded RM50.00. The private assessor recommends RM100.00. The government assessor leaves the award undisturbed. The difference is marginal. In the context of a statutory award already made and absent any persuasive reason why RM50.00 is inadequate, I do not consider it appropriate to alter that figure. [68] As to valuation fee, the Land Administrator awarded RM1,272.00. The private assessor recommends RM1,620.00. The government assessor again leaves the award untouched. The same conclusion follows. The appellant has not shown a sufficient basis to disturb the figure already awarded. F. CONCLUSION [69] The objection on measurement fails because no real evidential dispute remains as to the 30 square metres acquired. [70] The objection to the amount of compensation succeeds in two respects. First, the proper market value of the 30 square metres acquired is RM390.00 per square metre, giving RM11,700.00 under that head and an increase of RM750.00 over the Land Administrator's award. Secondly, on the further material in the Additional Affidavit affirmed on 21 May 2026, the appellant has established a measured claim for injurious affection to the dwelling under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule, assessed at RM15,000.00. [71] The challenge to the award for the store and ancillary terrace structures fails because the higher valuation claimed depends on measurements and assumptions not sufficiently proved. [72] The claim for injurious affection to the remaining land fails because the evidence does not show legally cognisable and measurable diminution within paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule. The claim for injurious affection to the dwelling is allowed in part, in the sum of RM15,000.00, on the basis explained above. [73] The further claims for recovery or reinstatement, temporary rental, moving costs, attendance and increased valuation fee also fail. They are either unsupported by evidence or fall outside the statutory circumstances in which compensation is permitted. [74] The proper total compensation is therefore RM56,426.45, being the original award of RM40,676.45, plus RM750.00 for the increase in land value, and plus RM15,000.00 for injurious affection to the dwelling. G. ORDERS OF THE COURT [75] The orders of the court are as follows:

The land reference is allowed in part.

The Land Administrator's award is varied as follows: compensation for the acquired land is increased from RM10,950.00 to RM11,700.00, and an award of RM15,000.00 is made for injurious affection to the dwelling under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule.

The total compensation payable is fixed at RM56,426.45.

The additional sum of RM15,750.00 shall be paid to the appellant.

Late payment charges on that excess sum shall run at the rate of five per cent per annum in accordance with section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 from the date the Land Administrator took possession of the land until full payment.

Having regard to section 51(1)(c) of the Act, the appellant's claim of RM327,519.00 still exceeds the court award by more than twenty per cent. There shall accordingly be no order as to costs.

The fees payable to the two (2) Assessors appointed in this matter are fixed at RM1,000.00 each for two (2) days' attendance in Court. Dated 25 May 2026 (YA Dato' Sri Raja Segaran A/L S. Krishnan) (Judicial Commisioner) High Court Of Malaya Malacca High Court (MELAKA) Lawyer For Appelant : Encik Fozi Addhwa bin Mohamad Fozi Tetuan Nordin Kassim & Aziz Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. 134-L, Tingkat 2, Jalan sultan Zainal Abidin, 20000 Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu. Lawyer For Respondent : Puan Anis Wahidah binti Mohamad Pegawai Undang-Undang Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Melaka, Aras 1, Blok Laksamana, Seri Negeri, 75450 Ayer Keroh, Melaka.