Sime Darby Plantation Berhad (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.) v Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Langat (BA-15-67-10/2021)

For case BA-15-67-10/2021 “Kebenaran diberikan kepada pemohon untuk mengemukakan bantahan-bantahan baru terhadap jumlah pampasan dari segi pecah pisah dan kesan mudarat (“severance and injurious affection”) dan juga kerja-kerja akomodasi (“accommodation works”) di dalam prosiding rujukan tanah ini.”

(ii) For case BA-15-74-10/2021 “Kebenaran diberikan kepada pemohon untuk mengemukakan bantahan-bantahan baru terhadap jumlah pampasan dari segi pecah pisah dan kesan mudarat (“severance and injurious affection”), kerja-kerja akomodasi (“accommodation works”) dan juga kos penyelidikan untuk “Enviromental Impact Assessment” di dalam prosiding rujukan tanah ini.”

(iii) For case BA-15-81-10/2021 “Kebenaran diberikan kepada pemohon untuk mengemukakan bantahan-bantahan baru kepada jumlah pampasan dari segi pecah pisah dan kesan mudarat (“severance and injurious affection”), kerja-kerja akomodasi (“accommodation works”) dan juga kos penyelidikan untuk “Enviromental Impact Assessment” di dalam prosiding rujukan tanah ini.”

(iv) For case BA-15-83-10/2021 “Kebenaran diberikan kepada pemohon untuk mengemukakan bantahan-bantahan baru kepada jumlah pampasan dari segi kerja-kerja akomodasi (“accommodation works”) dan kos penyelidikan “Enviromental Impact Assessment” di dalam prosiding rujukan tanah ini.”

For case BA-15-104-12/2021 “Kebenaran diberikan kepada pemohon untuk mengemukakan bantahan-bantahan baru kepada jumlah pampasan dari segi pecah pisah dan kesan mudarat (“severance and injurious affection”) dan juga kerja-kerja akomodasi (“accommodation works”) di dalam prosiding rujukan tanah ini.” Brief Facts [3] The brief facts of the applications as gleaned from documents filed are as follows. For case BA-15-67-10/2021, the facts of the case are that the applicant is the registered owner of the land held under Grant No. 48787 Lot 702 Mukim of Tanjung Duabelas, District of Kuala Langat, State of Selangor. Part of the land was acquired by the respondent. [4] The respondent awarded compensation in the sum of RM5,346,966.06, a sum below the amount claimed. [5] On 6.5.2021. Notice of Objection (Form N) was filed by the applicant. The objections on accommodation works, severance and injurious affections were not stated in the Form N. [6] The facts of the case for BA-15-74-10/2021, the applicant is the registered owner of the land held under Grant No. 334133 Lot 18141 Mukim of Jugra, District of Kuala Langat, State of Selangor. Part of the land was acquired by the respondent. [7] The respondent awarded compensation in the sum of RM4,231,346.00, a sum below the amount intended to be claimed by the applicant in this land reference. [8] On 8.6.2021. Notice of Objection (Form N) was filed by the applicant. The objections on accommodation works, severance and injurious affections were not stated in the Form N. [9] For case BA-15-81-10/2021, the applicant is the registered owner of the land held under Grant No. 334108 Lot 958 Mukim of Jugra, District of Kuala Langat, State of Selangor. Part of the land was acquired by the respondent. [10] The respondent awarded compensation in the sum of RM25,880,976.00, an amount below the amount claimed. [11] On 8.6.2021. Notice of Objection (Form N) was filed by the applicant. The objections on accommodation works, severance and injurious affections and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA Study) were not stated in the Form N. [12] The facts of the case of BA-15-83-10/2021, the applicant is the registered owner of the land held under Grant No. 334132 Lot 18283 Mukim of Jugra, District of Kuala Langat, State of Selangor. Part of the land was acquired by the respondent. [13] The respondent awarded compensation in the sum of RM2,174,800.00, a sum below the amount claimed. [14] On 8.6.2021. Notice of Objection (Form N) was filed by the applicant. The objections on accommodation works and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA Study) were not stated in the Form N. [15] For case BA-15-104-12/2021, the applicant is the registered owner of the land held under Grant No. 339741 Lot 2601 Mukim of Jugra, District of Kuala Langat, State of Selangor. Part of the land was acquired by the respondent. [16] The respondent awarded compensation in the sum of RM28,092,110.00, an amount below the amount claimed. [17] On 8.6.2021, Notice of Objection (Form N) was filed by the applicant. The objection on accommodation works and severance and injurious affection were not stated in the Form N. The Law [18] Article 13 of the Federal Constitution 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.” [19] The law and proceedings relating to land acquisition are governed by the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (“the LAA”). This is a special Act which provisions must be strictly adhered to. [20] Specifically, Section 38 of the LAA provides: “(1) Any objection made under section 37 shall be made by a written application in Form N to the Land Administrator requiring that he refer the matter to the Court for its determination.

Every application under subsection (1) shall state fully the grounds on which objection to the award is taken, and at any hearing in Court no other grounds shall be given in argument, without leave of the Court …” [Emphasis added] [21] Section 38 of the LAA provides that an objection to the award must state fully the grounds on which the objection is taken. No other grounds of objection must be given, unless with the leave of court. Caselaw has established that the applicant is not entitled to raised additional grounds unless leave of court had been sought and granted. [Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd (now known as Y & Y Estate Sdn Bhd) v Pentadbiran Tanah Daerah Kinta [2006] 1 MLJ 12.] [22] The procedure to raise additional grounds is by way of a formal application supported by an affidavit, in accordance with the requirements of the Rules of High Court 1980. [Tan Yen Foon v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [2008] 1 MLJ 250]. [23] In the Supreme Court case of Damansara Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pemungut Hasil Tanah Petaling [1992] 2 MLJ 660, it was held that before an objector is allowed to raise a new ground of objection to an award of the Collector in the course of the reference proceedings, the leave of the court must be obtained by making a separate application to the court supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the additional grounds of objection in accordance with the Rules of the High Court 1980. [24] In order for leave to be granted to the applicant to raise additional grounds of objection in a land reference proceedings, the test to be applied by this court is the sufficient reasons test. This test was expounded in case law authorities. [25] In Pamol Plantations Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Kluang [2009] 5 MLRH 364, it was held at page 368 of the law report: “[28] The only requirement imposed was that an affidavit in support explaining the reasons for the additional grounds of objection had to be filed as a preliminary step before the hearing of the actual reference It would appear that as long as sufficient reasons are shown, leave should be granted.” [Emphasis added] Analysis and Findings [26] The applicant seeks to include additional grounds of objections. The additional grounds of objection sought for collectively in the land reference proceedings are severance and injurious affection, accommodation works and research costs on Environmental Impact Assessment. [27] It was submitted by the applicant that the new additional grounds of objection that the applicant seeks to introduce will not prejudice the respondent. This is because these additional grounds had been raised and claimed by the applicant during the land inquiry before the respondent. As such, the applicant contended that parties were aware of these additional grounds at the land inquiry. [28] It was further argued that the inclusion of these additional grounds did not automatically mean the applicant would be entitled to the compensation sought. The applicant would still be required to adduce evidence at the hearing of the land reference. Moreover, it was submitted that there was no enlargement of the quantum and scope of the claim by the applicant. [29] In the applicant’s affidavit in support of this application, it was averred that at the land inquiry, the applicant had engaged the service of Ian Scott International as a private valuer. [30] The applicant has since appointed Iskandar Associates as the private valuer. It was contended that the previous valuer Ian Scott International had omitted or failed to include the following grounds of objection for the land reference cases;

• severance and injuries affection.

(ii) • severance, injuries affection and accommodation works.

(iii) • severance, injuries affection and research costs of Environmental Impact Assessment.

(iv) • research costs of Environmental Impact Assessment.

• severance, injuries affection and accommodation works. [31] According to the applicant, the additional grounds of objection were sought to be introduced when the applicant’s lawyers realized some grounds of objection were not included in Form N. The applicant then cited the constitutional right of the applicant as provided for under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. [32] The respondent objected to this application for additional grounds of objection. The respondent argued that in land reference proceedings, this court is bound by Form N. In this application by the applicant, there was no amendment to Form N to include the new grounds of objection. Hence, the respondent argued the application is in error, and should not be allowed by this court. [33] In a land reference, subsection 38 (2) of the LAA provides: Every application under subsection (1) shall state fully the grounds on which objection to the award is taken, and at any hearing in Court no other grounds shall be given in argument, without leave of the court. [34] The test to be applied in allowing leave is the sufficient reason test. [See: Pamol Plantations Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Kluang [2009] 5 MLRH 364]. In these applications before this court, the lawyers appointed realized that some additional grounds had not been included in Form N. [35] The grounds for this application to include addition grounds of objection is that the applicant had recently been advised by the private valuer that the applicant has a reasonable claims. [36] The applicant had a private valuer at the land inquiry. In the view of this court, the private valuer could have advised the applicant to include the items (for severance and injurious affection, kos juruukur untuk hakmilik sambungan dan accommodation works) in the Form N. [37] The applicant failed to do so. The grounds put forth the applicant i.e. that the applicant had now been advised by the new valuer, is in the view of this court insufficient to allow this application. The applicant is a corporation which has access to a team of valuers and legal advisers. In the view of this court, the reasons put forth by the applicant is insufficient reasons and there are no sufficient reason or justification which would allow this court to allow this application. [See: Singapore Para Rubber Estate Lt d v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Rembau, Negeri Sembilan [2009] 1 CLJ 13; [2008] 6 MLJ 763] [38] The fact is that the applicant, Sime Darby Plantation Berhad is a corporation. It is a government linked company which has access to a team of in house legal counsel as well as a panel lawyers. At the time of filing Form N, it would be prudent and sensible for the lawyers, be it in house legal counsels or the panel of lawyers to be involved and to advice accordingly. Bearing in mind the applicant is a corporation with access to legal advice, in the view of this court, there is no sufficient reason for the applicant to not have included the additional grounds of objection in Form N. [39] Subsection 38(1) of the LAA reads: “(1) Any objection made under section 37 shall be made by a written application in Form N to the Land Administrator requiring that he refer the matter to the Court for its determination.” [40] A reading of subsection 38(1) of the LAA will appear that the objections must be made in Form N. Subsection 38(1) of the LAA necessitates that objections are mandatorily made in Form N. The court, in land reference proceedings, is bound and restricted to the objections raised in Form N. [41] The question therefore is whether it is necessary for the applicant to amend Form N to include the additional grounds of objections to enable the court to consider the additional grounds of objection in land reference proceedings. [42] In the case of additional grounds of objection, the LAA does not specifically state that Form N is required to be amended to include the additional grounds of objection in Form N. Nonetheless, the court in land reference proceedings is bound and constrained to the objections in Form N. The court cannot, in the view of this court, consider additional objections which are not stated in Form N. [43] In this application before this court, the applicants had sought to include additional grounds of objections. This application is pursuant to subsection 38(2) of the LAA. There was no application to amend Form N by the applicant. It was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no requirement for the applicant to amend Form N to include additional grounds of objection. [44] In the case of Sri Seltra Sdn Bhd v. Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia & Anor [2022] 9 CLJ 359, the court held: “[29] The LAA is a special act relating to the acquisition of land, the assessment of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition and matters incidental thereto. The provisions of the LAA make it clear that the lodging of Form N is essential if a party seeks to object to an award in a land reference proceeding. If the Form N is filed by the owner of the property who is not satisfied with the amount of compensation, then the power to scrutinise the award is confined to whether the award was inadequately compensated. Likewise, if the Form N is filed by the paymaster who is not satisfied with the amount of compensation, then the power to scrutinise the award is confined to whether the award was excessive or overcompensated. Therefore, the Form N sets out the 'terms of reference' of the court to examine the applicant's objection raised.” [45] In the case of Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang Sdn Bhd Lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah & Satu Lagi [2022] 1 LNS 672, had stated the following: “[5] Kemudian PBA melalui Lampiran 3 telah kemukakan permohonan untuk meminda Borang N untuk memasukkan alasan-alasan tambahan berdasarkan seksyen 38(2) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (“Akta”) dan telah mendapat kebenaran mahkamah untuk memfailkan Borang N Terpinda. Perintah oleh mahkamah bertarikh 24.5.2019 (“Perintah”) (Lampiran 14) adalah seperti berikut: … 2) bahawa Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk meminda Borang N untuk memasukkan alasan-alasan tambahan (“additional grounds”) berdasarkan seksyen 38(2) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (Akta 486); …” [46] The LAA is a specific act relating to the acquisition of land, the assessment of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition and matters incidental thereto. The provisions of LAA make it clear that the lodging of Form N is essential if a party seeks to object to an award in a land reference proceeding. In short, Form N outlines the terms of reference for the court to examine the objections raised by the applicant. [47] In this application to include additional grounds of objection in the land reference, the applicant failed or omitted to include an amendment to Form N. As Form N is the terms of reference of the court in a land reference proceeding, this court is of the considered view that an amendment to Form N is necessary to enable the court to consider the additional grounds of objection. It is this court’s opinion that without an amendment to Form N to include the additional grounds of objection, this court cannot consider the additional grounds of objection as they are not include in Form N which sets out this court’s terms of reference. Conclusion [48] This court is satisfied there are no sufficient reasons or justification for this court to allow the applicant’s application to include additional grounds of objection. [49] Moreover, in a land reference proceeding, this court is confined to the objections raised in Form N. There was no amendment to Form N to include the additional grounds of objection filed by the applicant. [50] For the aforementioned reasons, this court dismisses this application with no order as to costs. Date: 16 August 2023 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For The Applicant: Chua Por Ron, Au Yeong Wen Qian Tetuan Chua & Partners Advocates & Solicitors 46-01, Jalan Molek 1/28 Taman Molek, 81100 Johor Bahru, Johor porronchua@ymail.com +6 07 3510 510 For the Respondent (LR 67 & LR 104): 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. +6 03 5544 7183 etty@selangor.gov.my For the Respondent (LR 74, LR 81 & LR 83): Amelia Binti Masran 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 etty@selangor.gov.my