Nabisah Binti Abdul Hamid (PM 6413) v Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Langat (BA-15-229-09/2022)

Nilai Pasaran - RM180.00 smp

(ii) Kos Pembangunan Tanaman-Tiada

(iii) Kos Pokok Kelapa Sawit - Tiada

(iv) Kehilangan Pendapatan Hasil Kelapa Sawit - Tiada [7] Pemohon yang tidak berpuas hati dengan awad responden telah memfailkan Borang N – Permohonan Supaya Bantahan Dirujukkan Kepada Mahkamah bertarikh 23.3.2022 berdasarkan alasan-alasan berikut:

Pampasan yang ditawarkan untuk bahagian tanah yang diambil tidak mencerminkan nilai pasaran Lot Subjek tersebut dan nilai-nilai tanah di sekitarnya; dan

Pemohon telah dinafikan haknya untuk mendapat pampasan yang mencukupi dan munasabah untuk nilaian tanah, kos pembangunan tanaman kelapa sawit, kehilangan pendapatan hasil kelapa sawit, kos kelapa sawit dan kos-kos sampingan sepertimana yang diperuntukan di bawah LAA. Undang-Undang Berkaitan Rujukan Tanah [8] Perkara 13 of the Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.” [9] Prosidur berhubung rujukan tanah diperuntukkan dalam LAA. Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd v. Inch Kenneth Kajang Rubber Ltd & Anor Other Appeals [2011] 4 MLJ 403 telah menyatakan: “[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:

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] Awad untuk pengambilan tanah ini dinilai dan diputuskan oleh pentadbir tanah di bawah Seksyen 14 LAA. Setelah awad dibuat, seksyen 36 LAA memberi bidang kuasa kepada Mahkamah Tinggi untuk menentukan sebarang bantahan berkenaan awad yang dibuat oleh pentadbir tanah. Seksyen 36 LAA memperuntukkan: “36. (1) 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 of 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 the Land Administrator shall refer to the Court for determination any objection to such award duly made in accordance with this Part.” [11] Seksyen 37 LAA pula menetapkan pihak yang tidak berpuas hati dengan awad pentadbir tanah berhak untuk membantah awad yang diberikan oleh pentadbir tanah melalui rujukan tanah kepada Mahkamah Tinggi. Ini adalah dengan syarat bahawa jumlah keseluruhan yang diawadkan sebagai ganti rugi tidak kurang daripada Ringgit Malaysia Tiga Ribu Sahaja. [12] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and another case [2017] 3 MLJ 561 menjelaskan prosidur berhubung pendapat para pegapit, seperti berikut: “(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” Analisa dan Dapatan [13] Dalam rujukan tanah ini, mahkamah ini dibantu oleh Encik Abdul Rahman bin Mohd Nasir pengapit kerajaan dari Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta dan Encik Azhar bin Mamat, pengapit swasta dari Nilai Harta Consultant Sdn Bhd. Kedua-dua penilai telah dilantik untuk membantu mahkamah ini dalam menentukan bantahan yang dibuat oleh pemohon terhadap awad responden. [14] Undang-undang memperuntukkan bahawa bagi bantahan dalam kes rujukan tanah, pemohon hendaklah membuktikan kes prima facie bahawa awad pampasan yang diberikan oleh responden adalah tidak mencukupi. Dalam kes Ong Yan & Anor v. Collector of Land Revenue, Alor Gajah, Malacca [1986] 1 MLJ 405, mahkamah telah menyatakan: “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.” [Penekanan ditambah] [15] Dalam kes Collector of Land Revenue v. Alagappa Chettiar And Collector of Land Revenue v. Ong Thye Eng and Cross Appeals [1968] 1 LNS 31; [1971] 1 MLJ 43 mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “The onus lies upon the applicant to satisfy the court by evidence that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate…” [Penekanan ditambah] [16] Dalam menentukan pampasan bagi pengambilan tanah di bawah LAA, mahkamah hendaklah merujuk kepada Perenggan 2 Jadual Pertama kepada LAA. [17] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ng Tiou Hong v. Collector of Land Revenue [1984] 2 MLJ 35 telah menyatakan: “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”. [18] Keperluan untuk mengambil kira Seksyen 2 Jadual Pertama kepada LAA dalam membuat nilaian terhadap jumlah pampasan telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes JH Capital Services Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling [2020] 4 MLJ 1 telah menyatakan: “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”. [19] Dalam rujukan tanah ini, penilai pemohon telah mengemukakan sebelas (11) perbandingan yang terletak dalam lokaliti Jalan Sekupi, Janjarom (Perbandingan 1, 2 dan 6), Tanjong Rabok (Perbandingan 3), Kampung Seri Cheeding (Perbandingan 4 dan 11), Revolusi Hijau Sijangkang (Perbandingan 5, 7 dan 8), Bukit Kemandol (Perbandingan 9) dan Persiaran Saujana Putra (Perbandingan 10). [20] Manakala penilai responden telah mengemukakan lima (5) perbandingan yang terletak dalam lokaliti Revolusi Hijau Sijangkang (Perbandingan 1 hingga 4) dan Telok Mengkuang (Perbandingan 5). [21] Mahkamah telah meneliti perbandingan-perbandingan yang dikemukakan dan dapati kesemua perbandingan penilai pemohon kecuali Perbandingan 3 adalah tidak sesuai. Ini adalah kerana kesemua berbandingan penilai pemohon berada di lokaliti berbeza. Perbandingan 3 penilai pemohon berada dalam lokaliti yang serupa dan terhampir dengan Lot Subjek. Namun, mahkamah mendapati tiada bukti perbandingan lain yang menyokong harga transaksi bagi Perbandingan 3 ini. Pada pandangan mahkamah ini, satu perbandingan sahaja tidak melambangkan pasaran. Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa satu perbandingan ini, yakni Perbandingan 3 merupakan outlier. Perbandingan 3 yang merupakan outlier, pada pandangan mahkamah ini tidak boleh digunakan sebagai perbandingan untuk melambangkan harga pasaran. Tambahan pula, satu perbandingan sahaja tidak melambangkan harga pasaran. Seharusnya terdapat beberapa perbandingan lain bagi menentukan harga pasaran. Oleh itu, mahkamah ini menolak Perbandingan 3 penilai pemohon. [22] Bagi perbandingan yang digunakan oleh penilai responden, Perbandingan 5 berada di lokaliti berbeza dan oleh itu mahkamah menolak perbandingan tersebut. [23] Dalam kes rujukan tanah ini, tiada perbandingan sepunya. Mahkamah telah meneliti kesemua perbandingan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pemohon dan pihak responden. Mahkamah mendapati Perbandingan 2 penilai responden iaitu Lot 11745 Mukim Teluk Panglima Garang adalah terbaik. Ini adalah kerana Lot 11745 ini mempunyai ciri-ciri sebanding dengan Lot Subjek. [24] Dengan menggunakan Lot 11745 ini, mahkamah telah membuat penyelarasan seperti berikut: Lot 11745, Mukim Teluk Panglima Garang, Daerah Kuala Langat Analisa Balasan Pelarasan: : RM188.97 smp

Masa (Sep 2021 vs Mei 2020) : +5% (Pelarasan positif kerana tempoh transaksi melebihi 1 tahun) RM198.42 smp

Lokasi: (Tanjung Rabok vs Revolusi Hijau Sijangkang) (Perbandingan lebih baik) : -5%

Lapisan (Pertama rezab jalan vs Pertama rezab jalan) : -

Hakmilik (Pajakan berbaki 76 tahun vs Pajakan berbaki 72 tahun) : -

Luas tanah (8,806.0 mp vs 8,996.0 mp) : -

Perancangan (Pertanian vs Pertanian) : - -5% RM9.92 smp RM188.50 smp katakan RM190.00 smp [25] Setelah membuat penyelarasan terhadap Perbandingan 2 penilai responden, mahkamah mendapati nilai pasaran adalah Ringgit Malaysia Satu Ratus Sembilan Puluh Sahaja semeter persegi. [26] Bagi tuntutan kos pembangunan tanaman kelapa sawit, penilai pemohon telah mengemukakan cadangan pampasan kos pembangunan tanaman sebanyak RM 43,030.00 (RM 50,000.00 sehektar x 0.8806 hektar). Penilai responden tidak mempertimbangkan item ini. Responden tidak memberikan awad bagi tuntutan ini. Mahkamah berpandangan tuntutan ini tidak perlu dipertimbangkan kerana Lot Subjek telah dibayar pampasan penuh. Pemohon menuntut kos pembangunan tanah yang telah pun pemohon nikmati hasilnya. Oleh itu, mahkamah menolak tuntutan ini. [27] Bagi tuntutan kehilangan pendapatan hasil kelapa sawit, penilai pemohon mencadangkan pampasan kehilangan pendapatan kelapa sawit sebanyak RM 93,960.00 untuk tempoh selama 36 bulan dengan kadar sebulan sehektar sebanyak RM1,200.00 seekar bagi keluasan 0.8806 hektar. Mahkamah ini mendapati tuntutan ini merupakan pendapatan masa hadapan. Nilai pampasan tanah pertanian bertanam pokok kelapa sawit telah pun diberikan. Oleh itu, mahkamah menolak tuntutan ini. [28] Untuk kos pampasan pokok, penilai pemohon telah mengemukakan tuntutan nilai pokok kelapa sawit sebanyak RM18,300.00 untuk kos sebanyak RM150.00 sebatang pokok untuk 122 batang pokok. Penilai responden tidak memberikan sebarang cadangan pampasan pokok dan Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Langat juga tidak memberikan sebarang pampasan atas tuntutan ini. Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan pendapat penilai responden bahawa nilai pokok telah dicerminkan di dalam nilai tanah kerana tanah dinilai sebagai tanah pertanian bertanam pokok kelapa sawit. Pengiraan nilai pokok akan mewujudkan ‘double-counting’ di dalam pengiraan pampasan. Oleh itu, mahkamah ini menolak tuntutan ini. [29] Bagi kos pembelian tanah baru, penilai pemohon telah mencadangkan pampasan kos untuk mendapatkan tanah baru sebanyak RM202,388.80 meliputi kos duti setem sebanyak RM81,895.80, kos ejen harta tanah sebanyak RM81,895.80 dan kos peguam sebanyak RM27,298.60. Tiada cadangan kos ini oleh penilai responden. Pemohon atau penilainya tidak mengemukakan sebarang bukti atau resit bahawa item ini telah dilaksanakan. Mahkamah ini berpandangan tuntutan ini tidak perlu dipertimbangkan dan oleh itu tuntutan ini ditolak. Kesimpulan [30] Berdasarkan analisa di atas, dan setelah mengaplikasikan Jadual Pertama LAA serta prinsip-prinsip yang berkenaan seperti yang ditetapkan oleh kes-kes terdahulu, awad yang diberikan oleh pentadbir tanah sebagai responden adalah dipinda dengan perintah seperti berikut:

nilai pasaran di bawah seksyen 2(a) Jadual Pertama Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 dinaikkan kepada: RM190.00 smp (Ringgit Malaysia: Satu Ratus Sembilan Puluh Sahaja) semeter persegi;

(ii) awad diberi untuk pertambahan pampasan nilai tanah berjumlah RM 88,060.00 (Ringgit Malaysia: Lapan Puluh Lapan Ribu Enam Puluh Sahaja);

(iii) lain-lain award PTD dikekalkan;

(iv) caj lewat bayar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah RM88,060.00 dari tarikh pengeluaran Borang ‘K’ tanpa kos sehingga penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad;

deposit dikembalikan kepada pemohon; dan

(vi) kos pengapit swasta RM500.00 dan kos pengapit kerajaan RM500.00 ditanggung oleh pemohon dan hendaklah dibayar dalam tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh hari ini. Date: Oktober 2023 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya, Shah Alam Peguam: Pihak Pemohon Chooi Wei Sern, Wong Yen Voon Tetuan Sern & Lee Advocates & Solicitors No. 554-A, Jalan Merdeka, Taman Melaka Raya, 75000 Melaka. general@sernandlee.com +6 06 286 69 66 Pihak Responden: Nur Syafinaz Hayati binti Kamarrudin, Cempaka Sari binti Kamarudin 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