Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat (15-99-09/2012)

This land reference pertains to the compensation on the 17,284.67 square meters of the land known as Lot Nos.2630 and 8630, Mukim of Kajang, District of Hulu Langat, State of Selangor Darul Ehsan (“The Impugned Lands”).

Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd (“Orchard Circle”) is the land owner of the Impugned Lands. Orchard Circle is the applicant in the land reference BA-15-99-09/2012.

The Impugned Lands were acquired for the purposes of SILK Highway. Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd (“SILK”) is the concessionaire of the SILK Highway, and the applicant in Land Reference BA-15-100-09/2012.

Before this court delves into the decision of this court in arriving at the compensation amount to be awarded to Orchard Circle, it would be prudent to first lay out the factual background which brought this land reference before this court.

The Land Administrator awarded nominal compensation of RM10.00 for the 17,284.67 lands (purportedly ‘surrender’ lands) and the RM514,948.00 compensation for the remaining 1,839.10 square meters (the ‘excluded’ land) at a rate of RM280.00 per square meter. 4

On 1 July 2022, this court had, with the assistance of two assessors, made the following award and order:

Orchard Circle had surrendered the area of 17,284.67 square meters (Surrendered Area) of No. Lot 2630 & 8630 (Original No. Lot 2629), No.Hakmilik GRN 30006, Mukim Kajang, Daerah Hulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul

(ii) The compensation award by Hulu Langat Land Administrator dated 20.4.2012:

For the Surrendered Area in the nominal sum of RM10.00 is maintained; and

For an area of 1,839.10 square meters of the Land in the sum of RM514,948.00 is maintained.

(iii) Late payment charges at the rate of 5% per annum on the sum of RM 514,948.00 from the date of issuance of Form “K” on 20 February 2003 until the date of full and final settlement; and

(iv) Costs for the government assessor in the sum of RM500.00 and costs for the private assessor in the sum of RM500.00 to be borne by Orchard Circle and SILK had been paid. 5

Dissatisfied with the decision of this Court, Orchard Circle appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal on 25 August 2023, had allowed Orchard Circle’s appeal and remitted the matter to this Court for this Court with the assistance of assessors to proceed with the hearing on the assessment on the valuation on the amount of compensation based on the respective parties’ valuation reports for the Impugned Lands.

Following the decision of the Court of Appeal, SILK then appealed to the Federal Court. On 12 March 2025, the Federal Court by a majority decision affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Federal Court remitted the case to this Court to assess the compensation.

The Federal Court at paragraph 42 of the Board Grounds (Majority) had this to state: “As there was no valid surrender of the impugned land to the State Authority, the compensation for the impugned land needs to be assessed and as such, the order of the Court of Appeal to remit the case to the High Court for the assessment of the impugned land is most appropriate.”

This court then proceeded to hear the land reference on 17 April

Decision was delivered on 12 Jun 2025. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by this court, SILK appealed the decision of this court. This is the grounds of this court in arriving at its decision. 6

For purposes of completeness, it is perhaps prudent to mentioned that with regard to appeals in land reference cases, section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (“LAA”) reads: “49(1) Any person interested, including the Land Administrator and any person or corporation on whose behalf the prOrchard Circleeedings 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]

See: Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd V. Orchard

These land references have a long history. For purposes of completeness this court will set out the history of these land references.

On 10 December 2001, Form D of the LAA was issued to compulsorily acquire part of the lands belonging to Orchard Circle for the purpose of the “SILK Highway”.

A first land inquiry was held on 24 December 2002 where Orchard Circle was awarded nominal compensation of RM1.00 7 (“First Award”) on the basis that a portion of the lands have already been surrendered by Orchard Circle to the State Authority.

On 30 January 2003, Orchard Circle filed the first judicial review application for an order, among others, to quash the First Award and a declaration that the acquisition of the lands were null and void (“First JR Application”).

On 10 December 2010, in relation to the First JR Application, the Shah Alam High Court ordered as follows (“HC Order for

a certiorari to quash the First Award; and

(ii) a mandamus to remit the matter back to the Land Office for a second land inquiry (“Second Land Inquiry”).

The Shah Alam High Court did not grant a declaration that the acquisition is null and void.

The Second Land Inquiry was held from 7 February 2011 to 17 November 2011 by the Land Administrator (“LA”). The Second Land Inquiry proceeded with the calling of 4 witnesses, including Orchard Circle’s own witness. 8

On 20 April 2012, the LA made the following decision:

17,284.67 square meters of the lands were surrendered by Orchard Circle to the State Authority (“Surrendered Portion”) and hence, LA awarded nominal compensation of RM10.00 for the

(ii) 1,839.10 square meters of the lands were not surrendered and the LA awarded compensation of RM514,948.00 – (“Second Award”); and

(iii) the Second Award replaces the First Award, as directed by the High Court in the First JR Application.

Orchard Circle filed the second judicial review application against the LA, Director of Department of the Director-General of Lands and Mines (Federal) State of Selangor, Government of the State of Selangor and Government of Malaysia on 30 May 2012 (“Second JR Application”).

On 31 May 2012, both Orchard Circle and SILK (applicant in case BA-15-100-09/2011) filed Form N in objection to the Second Award. 9

On 28 September 2012, SILK filed an application to, among others, intervene in the Second JR Application (“SILK’s Intervening Application”) which was allowed on 19 August 2013.

The Second JR Application was fixed for hearing on 6 January 2016 and it was fixed for decision on 7 March 2016.

The High Court made the following orders in relation to the

an order of certiorari to quash a Form D dated 10 December 2001 issued pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the LAA and all proceedings following therefrom for the acquisition of the lands belonging to Orchard

(ii) an order of certiorari to quash Form G dated 20 April 2012 and Form H dated 20 April 2012 issued pursuant to subsections 14(1) and 16(1) of the LAA and all proceedings therefrom;

(iii) a declaration that:

the acquisition or taking into possession of the lands by the respondents is null and void and of no legal effect; and

Orchard Circle is the lawful proprietor of the Lands and it is entitled to possession thereof; 10

(iv) a re-inquiry of the acquisition of the lands is ordered after re-issuance of a new Form D;

Orchard Circle’s alternative prayers as follows:

a declaration that there was no surrender of 17,284.67 square meters of the lands; and

(ii) an order of mandamus to direct the 1st and/or the 2nd respondents to make an award of compensation for the entire lands acquired in the sum of RM17,774,664.00 with interests thereon from 20 December 2001 until full payment was dismissed with no order as to costs.

From 28 March 2016 to 5 April 2016, SILK and the other respondents appealed against part of the High Court’s Decision to the Court of Appeal.

On 8 April 2016, Orchard Circle appealed against part of the High Court’s Decision to the Court of Appeal. On 27 April 2016, Orchard Circle filed notices of cross-appeal.

The land reference proceedings herein were stayed pending the disposal of the appeals and cross-appeals to the Court of Appeal by way of a consent order dated 24 May 2016. 11

The Court of Appeal on 21 July 2017, unanimously allowed SILK’s and other respondents’ appeals and dismissed Orchard Circle’s appeals. The Court of Appeal then ordered that the High Court orders in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above be set aside and further declared that:

the Form D is valid;

(ii) all objections concerning compensation and issue of surrender be dealt with at the land reference proceedings herein;

(iii) Orchard Circle pays costs of RM30,000 to SILK in respect of its appeal;

(iv) Orchard Circle pays costs of RM10,000 to the 1st and 3rd respondents in respect of its appeal;

Orchard Circle pays costs of RM10,000 to the 2nd and 4th respondents in respect of its appeal; and

(vi) no order as to costs in relation to Orchard Circle’s appeals - (“COA’s Decision”).

On 17 August 2017, Orchard Circle applied for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s Decision where the land reference proceedings herein were stayed pending the final disposal of 12 Orchard Circle’s appeal to the Federal Court by way of an order dated 3 November 2017.

On 4 December 2017, the Federal Court allowed leave for the following 2 questions:

whether, pursuant to subsection 8(4) of the LAA, a declaration in Form D automatically lapses and ceases to be of any effect where an award of the LA is made within the stipulated two-year period but subsequently quashed resulting in a subsequent award made outside the two-year period; and

whether the issues of res judicata and estoppel can clothe a declaration in Form D, which would otherwise lapse and cease to have any effect pursuant to subsection 8(4) of the LAA, with legal effect.

Orchard Circle’s appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed with costs on 13 November 2020. The matter was remitted to this court to decide on the issue of surrender and the compensation of the second award by the LA.

On 1 July 2022, this court had, with the assistance of two assessors, made the following award and order: 13

Orchard Circle had surrendered the area of 17,284.67 square meters (Surrendered Area) of No. Lot 2630 & 8630 (Original No. Lot 2629), No.Hakmilik GRN 30006, Mukim Kajang, Daerah Hulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (Land);

(ii) The compensation award by Hulu Langat Land Administrator dated 20.4.2012;

(iii) For the Surrendered Area in the nominal sum of RM10.00 is maintained; and

(iv) For an area of 1,839.10 square meters of the Land in the sum of RM514,948.00 is maintained.

Dissatisfied with the decision of this court, Orchard Circle appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal on 25 August 2023, had allowed Orchard Circle’s appeal and remitted the matter to this Court for this Court to proceed with the hearing on the assessment on the valuation on the amount of compensation based on the respective parties’ valuation reports for the Impugned Lands.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, SILK then appealed to the Federal Court. On 12 March 2025, the Federal Court by a majority decision affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Federal Court remitted the case to this Court to assess the compensation. 14

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

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.

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 15 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 5 BA-15-129-05/2024 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 proceedings before the Court under this Act.”

Section 14 of the LAA makes provision that awards of compensation for compulsory acquisition are assessed and decided on by a land administrator.

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: “(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; 16

the apportionment of compensation for such right or interest;

the persons to whom such compensation is payable; (f) 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 duly made in accordance with this Part.”

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.

For ease of reference, section 37 of the LAA is reproduced below: 17

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). 18

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: “(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 19 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.”

Founded on these legal principles, this court considered this land reference.

At the land reference proceedings, this court was assisted by a government assessor, Encik Abdul Rahman bin Mohd Nasir from Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta Malaysia, and a private assessor, Encik Azman bin Mamat of Nilai Harta Consultant Sdn Bhd. A copy of their reports are attached and marked as Annexure A and Annexure B respectively.

Orchard Circle submitted that founded on the decision of the Court of Appeal which was affirmed by the Federal Court on 12 March 2025, this Court is required to consider the Orchard Circle’s intended or potential development of the Impugned Lands when assessing the valuation in awarding the adequate compensation.

Orchard's valuation and compensation claim, as detailed in the Azmi & Co report, is based on the acquisition of the entire 19,123.77 square meters of land. However, this Court is only required to assess compensation for 17,284.67 square meters 20 (referred to as "the impugned lands"). In addition to land compensation, Orchard is also claiming the following other losses: Estate Agents/Valuers Fees: RM30,970.00 Other Losses: RM659,000.00

It was submitted that the notification in the government gazette was on 20 December 2001 and hence for purposes of the valuation, the market value of the acquired lands would be determined as at the date of the gazette notification No. 1965 which is 20 December 2001. [See: Collector of Land Revenue, Kuantan v Noor Chahaya Binte Abdul Majid (1979) 1 MLJ180]

As of the gazette date on 20 December 2001, Orchard Circle had already paid a premium of RM3,112,245.00 on 28 April 1997 for the conversion of the impugned lands from agricultural to building use, which subsequently led to the issuance of a development order by the Majlis Perbandaran Kajang on 3 June1998.

SILK on the other hand, argued that the fact that Orchard Circle had intended to surrender the Impugned Land has been upheld by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. The Court of Appeal held: “[38] This court further finds that the fact that the impugned land was originally intended to be surrendered for the purpose of appellant’s development project would 21 be a relevant factor to be considered in determining the land value in the assessment of the compensation amount. … [40] Notwithstanding that the impugned land was intended to be surrendered for the purpose of the appellant’s development project at the material time, that could not deprive the appellant’s right to a proper assessment exercise of the value of the impugned land which had not been effectively surrendered according to the NLC.”

It was submitted that Orchard Circle did not dispute the Court of Appeal’s aforesaid findings as Orchard Circle did not appeal to Federal Court against that finding. [See: Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd. [1995] 3 MLJ 189]

SILK’s position, in a nutshell is that as the Impugned Lands were intended to be surrendered by Orchard Circle, no value ought to be given to the Impugned Lands. SILK’s valuation report dated 20 April 2004, Appraisal Property Consultants (M) Sdn. Bhd. (“Appraisal”) took into consideration that Orchard Circle had already agreed to surrender the Impugned Lands.

Reference was made to the case of Land Administrator, District of Gombak v Huat Heng (Lim Low & Sons) Sdn Bhd (1990) 3 MLJ 464 as follows: 22 “the owner should not be allowed to deny the condition which he had agreed to, that is to surrender the land as indicated on the plan for a public purpose, and he cannot claim the market value for the land.”

SILK argued that in accordance with the fundamental principle of compensation law, any amount awarded should place the landowner in the same financial position they would have been in had the compulsory acquisition not occurred. Hence, founded on this principle, even in the absence of compulsory acquisition, Orchard Circle had already agreed to surrender the Impugned Lands as a condition for obtaining development approval. As such, the land was no longer available for future development. This fact was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and is now res judicata. Accordingly, this Court is bound by the findings of the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, Orchard Circle would not have been entitled to compensation for the Impugned Lands, as it was to be surrendered under the terms of the development approval. As such, granting Orchard Circle compensation at market value for the Impugned Land would therefore contravene the principle of fair compensation, as it would result in unjust enrichment.

SILK put forth several cases where the case of Huat Heng (supra) was flowed: 23

Justice Abdul Malik Ishak (as His Lordship then was) in Tan Yen Foon v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah

(ii) Justice Nordin Hassan (as His Lordship then was) in Seong Choon Holdings Sdn. Bhd. & Ors v AEC Project Management Sdn. Bhd. & Ors [2015] MLJU 1947;

(iii) Justice Nordin Hassan (as His Lordship then was) in Afeef Abdul Qader Mansor v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan [2017] MLJU 2112;

(iv) Federal Court in Semenyih Jaya Sdn. Bhd. v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Another Case [2017] 5 CLJ 526;

Justice Chan Jit Li in Bandar Utama City Corp Sdn. Bhd. (previously Damansara Jaya Sdn. Bhd.) v Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya [2018] 10 MLJ 363; and

(vi) Court of Appeal in Afeef Abdulqader Mansoor v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [2019] 12 MLJ 125. 24

When remitting this case to the High Court, the Court of Appeal in Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2024] 6 MLJ 24 had held the following: “[38] This Court opines that whether the impugned land had any commercial value in view of the fact that it was intended to be surrendered for the appellant’s development ought to be determined by the High Court Judge assisted by the assessors. This issue was not considered earlier by the High Court Judge because the High Court Judge dismissed it on the footing that the impugned land had already been surrendered.”

The Federal Court, in the majority decision affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, had the occasion to state the following: “As there was no valid surrender of the impugned land to the State Authority, the compensation for the impugned land needs to be assessed and as such, the order of the Court of Appeal to remit the case to the High Court for the assessment of the impugned land is most appropriate.”

In essence, the Federal Court in the majority decision had decided there was no valid surrender of the Impugned Lands. SILK’s submissions rely on the assumption that while there was no surrender of the Impugned Lands, the Impugned Lands was intended to be surrendered. For that reason, SILK’s valuation 25 took the approach that the land value would be for land that is intended to be surrendered.

In the considered view of this court, the decision of the Federal Court is clear. Since there was no valid surrender of the disputed land to the State Authority, compensation for the land must be determined.

Founded on the Federal Court decision, which is that the Impugned Lands had not been surrendered, this court with the assistance of the two assessors proceeded to decide on the compensation to be awarded.

Learned counsel for SILK submitted that the Court of Appeal and Federal Court affirmed that Orchard Circle intended to surrender the Impugned Land. The Court of Appeal found that there was a clear intention by OCSB to surrender the Impugned Land. At paragraphs [38] and [40] of its grounds of judgment, the Court made the following observations: “[38] This Court further finds that the fact the Impugned Land was originally intended to be surrendered for the purpose of the appellant’s development project is a relevant factor to consider in determining the land value for compensation purposes. … [40] Notwithstanding that the Impugned Land was intended to be surrendered for the appellant’s development project at the material time, such intention 26 does not deprive the appellant of the right to a proper valuation exercise of the land, which had not been effectively surrendered in accordance with the NLC.”

According to SILK, Orchard Circle did not challenge these findings, as it did not appeal to the Federal Court on this issue. See: Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd. [1995] 3 MLJ 189. Hence, SILK contended that the only issue before this Court is the legal question posed by the Court of Appeal which is whether any value should be attributed to land that is intended to be surrendered.

It was further argued by SILK that no compensation should be attributed to land intended for surrender. As such, SILK stated that since the Impugned Lands were intended for surrender, Orchard Circle ought not to be given compensation.

Prior to the land reference proceedings, SILK had through a letter to this court sought to file a new valuation report. SILK’s position is that the valuation ought to be based on the fact that Orchard Circle had intended to surrender the Impugned Lands. This application was not allowed by this court. The reason is that the Federal Court in the majority decision had determined that there was no valid surrender of the Impugned Lands.

Founded on the valuation reports filed by Orchard Circle’s valuer, SILK’s Valuer and JPPH, the amounts sought by each party can be summarised as follows: 27

For Orchard Circle, the land value is RM16,056,709.00, which is approximately RM839.58 per square metre;

(ii) SILK valued the acquired land on the basis that there was intention to surrender of RM1.00; and

(iii) The Respondent’s valuer, JPPH, valued the surrendered land at a nominal RM10.00 and the owner’s land at RM514,948.00, which is approximately RM280.00 per square metre

The Land Administrator awarded compensation based on the valuation of the Respondent’s valuer, JPPH, namely a nominal value of RM10.00 for the surrendered land and RM514,948.00 for the owner’s land, which is approximately RM280.00 per square metre.

In determining the market value of the Impugned Lands, this court is mindful of the principles relating to the determination of compensation provided for in section 1 of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The best comparable is the common comparable. The common comparable that was used by both Orchard Circle’s valuer, Azmi & Co, and the Respondent’s valuer, JPPH are Comparison 3 and Comparison 1 respectively. 28

Nonetheless, the findings of Azmi & Co and JPPH differ. The analysis and adjustments by the Respondent’s valuer, JPPH, indicate an adjusted value of RM270.00 per square metre, whereas Orchard Circle’s valuer, OCSB Azmi & Co, indicates an adjusted value of RM830.76 per square metre.

Nevertheless, the valuation opinion of the Orchard Circle’s valuer, Azmi & Co, is not supported by the Adjustment Schedule. The land value of RM16,056,709.00 assessed by Azmi & Co is not transparent and there is no justification as the Adjustment Schedule was withheld.

This court is of the view that the selection of comparables must be based on the provisions of section 1(1A) and section 1(2BA) of the First Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Orchard Circle’s valuer, stated that the subject property is development land, whereas the SILK’s valuer, Appraisal (Malaysia), and the Respondent’s valuer, JPPH, classified the property as “Building” with the express condition of “Business”. Based on information from both Orchard Circle’s valuer, and the JPPH, information from the Selangor State Town and Country Planning Department shows that the Impugned Lands is located within a Commercial Zone.

It is observed that there is a Pre-Calculation Plan approved by Majlis Perbandaran Kajang dated 3 September 1998. The area involved in the acquisition includes road and lane reserves, a 29 small portion of shop lots, commercial plots, a water retention pond, parking spaces, and a buffer zone.

On 12 July 2001, the pre-calculation plan was amended in line with the requirements of Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia and approved by Majlis Perbandaran Kajang. The area involved in the acquisition (as per the pre-calculation plan dated 3 September 1998) was amended to “Future Development” (proposed highway). Based on the pre-calculation plan dated 12 July 2001 and the Land Acquisition Plan, the area marked for acquisition is designated for a specific land use, namely “Future Development” (proposed highway).

Therefore, the basis of valuation is in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, with emphasis on Paragraph 1(2BA), which relates to the issue of specific land use (planning).

In this regard, reference is made to section 1(2BA) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 which reads: “In assessing the market value of any scheduled land, where the information provided by the State Director of Town and Country Planning or the Commissioner of the City of Kuala Lumpur, as the case may be, under section 9A indicates that the scheduled land is within a local planning authority area, then the land shall be assessed by having regard to the specific land use for that land as indicated in the development plan.” 30

This means that when determining the market value of any scheduled land, if the information provided under Section 9A by the State Director of Town and Country Planning or the Commissioner of the City of Kuala Lumpur (as applicable) shows that the land falls within a local planning authority area, then the valuation must consider the specific land use designated in the development plan.

Founded on the provisions of section 1(2BA) of the First Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, this court is of the view that the valuation of the property should be carried out as it is legally owned land, but it must take into account all proper adjustment factors, particularly regarding the issue of specific land use (planning).

In terms of comparables, the best comparable is Comparable 3 which is the common comparable by Azmi & Co and JPPH. Founded on the common comparable, adjustments were made to the time factor of 5%, size was adjusted -25%, approval for development was adjusted +20% as there is an approval granted. Potential was adjusted -60% as the potential from commercial has been changed to highway.

Based on the above analysis and adjustments, this court found the market value of the property is approximately RM276.90 per square metre which is almost the same as the amount awarded 31 by the Land Administrator, which is RM280.00 per square metre.

In conclusion, founded 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:

The market value of the Impugned Lands is RM280.00 per square metre;

(ii) The increase in award for compensation in land value is RM4,839,697.60;

(iii) Late payment charges at the rate of 5% per annum on the sum of RM 4,839,697.60 from the issuance of Form K on 20 February 2003 until the date of full and final settlement;

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

All other claims are not allowed; 32

(vi) The Deposit for BA-15-99-09/2012 is returned to Orchard Circle and deposit for BA-15-100-09/2012 is returned to SILK; and

(vii) Orchard Circle and SILK are to pay the two assessors RM500.00 each for each land reference within 7 days of the date of the decision of this court. Dated: 15th August 2025 SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, SHAH ALAM 33 Counsel: For the Appellant (LR 99): V. Sri Dev a/l C V Nair Ashok Kumar Puri Messrs Sri Dev & Naila Advocates & Solicitors Unit No. 801, 8th Floor, Menara Mutiara Majestic, No. 15, Jalan Othman, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. For the Appellant (LR 100): Karen Lee Foong Voon See Yen Lin Messrs Wong Kian Kheong Advocates & Solicitors D1-U5-01, Solaris Dutamas, No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. 34 For the Respondent: FC Puan Etty Eliany binti Tesno Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor.