Suit AA-15-12-01/2024 (Lot 59855): Compensation of 200 RM1,957,428.00 for market value and RM564,307.20 for severance. [6]. Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the awards made by the land administrator, particularly in relation to the rejected claim and insufficient compensation under different heads of claim, 205 the applicant duly filed Form N and brought the present references before the High Court for determination. [7]. The matter was heard with the assistance of two (2) assessors. Both assessors recorded that the acquisition involved only a small strip of land and did not affect any buildings or permanent 210 structures, though the land is agricultural with recognised development potential. However, after considering the evidence on market valuation, the assessors unanimously agreed on the applicable market value and on the entitlement to compensation for injurious affection. The Assessors agreed to additional 215 award while maintaining the land administrator’s assessment on the land value. Evidence of SP1 (JPPH Valuation Officer) [8]. SP1, Encik Hilal Azrul bin Mohd Shadad, a valuation officer attached to JPPH Ipoh, testified that he has approximately eight 220 years of experience in valuation work. However, he is not yet an accredited valuer. In his evidence, SP1 accepted that the acquisition passed through the applicant’s land, physically cutting across the lot and resulting in portions of the land lying above and below the electricity transmission corridor. He 225 agreed that the acquisition line traversed the land itself and was not confined to the boundary, thereby giving rise to a form of severance in physical terms. [9]. Notwithstanding this, SP1 explained that JPPH’s recommendation was to confine compensation to the land 230 actually acquired and that no award was proposed for injurious affection. His view was that the presence of the high-voltage transmission line did not cause any diminution in land value, relying on his observation that residential developments located near transmission corridors did not demonstrate a discernible 235 difference in sale prices. At the same time, SP1 acknowledged that the transmission corridor constitutes a ‘rentis’ area, within which land use is subject to physical limitations and restrictions. He further confirmed that, for valuation purposes, JPPH applied a single uniform rate across all five neighbouring lots, without 240 differentiating between them despite variations in their physical configuration and the degree of impact arising from the acquisition. Issues for Determination [10]. In light of the agreed position of the assessors, the issues for 245 determination are: a) the market value of the acquired land under paragraph 2(a) of the First Schedule. b) compensation for injurious affection under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule. 250 c) Other claims submitted by the applicant. Market Value under paragraph 2(a) [11]. At the outset, I would state, from the decision of the Federal Court in Amitabha Guha v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2021] 4 MLJ 1; [2021] 3 CLJ 1, that determinations of 255 market value affecting land are findings of fact based on the evidence and do not constitute questions of law. In determining the market value under paragraph 2(a) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the court must apply the objective test of a hypothetical negotiation between a willing 260 vendor and a willing purchaser. This foundational principle was first articulated by Buhagiar J in Nanyang Manufacturing Co v The Collector of Land Revenue, Johore [1954] 1 MLJ 69; [1953] CLJU 59, where His Lordship, in accepting the definition of Jenkins CJ in Kailas Chandra v Secretary of State (17 Cal 265 LJ 35), quoted: “The market-value of land may be roughly described as the price that an owner willing, and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser with whom he was bargaining, for sale and purchase of the land.” 270 This definition has remained the cornerstone for the test of valuation of the market value of land under the Act. [12]. The above principle was subsequently refined and authoritatively restated by Syed Agil Barakbah FJ in the Federal 275 Court decision of Ng Tiou Hong v Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak [1984] 2 MLJ 35; [1984] 1 CLJ 350, where His Lordship held that: “First, market value means the compensation that must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor 280 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. 285 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 290 neighbourhood 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 295 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 300 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.” 305 “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.” From the passage above, his Lordship also emphasised that in 310 determining the market value, “the elements of unwillingness or sentimental value on the part of the vendor” must be disregarded. This approach was later echoed by Arifin Zakaria JCA (later Chief Justice) in Malakoff Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Seberang Perai Utara, Butterworth [2005] 2 MLJ 229; 315 [2005] 1 CLJ 365; [2005] 2 AMR 1 (refd) where His Lordship affirmed that the assessment must proceed on a purely objective basis, unaffected by the compulsory nature of the acquisition. [13]. As to the methodology of assessment, the courts have 320 consistently recognised that the “safest guide” in determining market value is the comparative method. Syed Agil Barakbah FJ stated this in Ng Tiou Hong (supra), where His Lordship observed that: “The safest guide is evidence of sales of similar lands of 325 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” 330 The same approach was endorsed earlier by Suffian LP in Collector of Stamp Duties v Ng Fah In & Ors, [1981] 1 MLJ 288; [1981] CLJU 107; [1980] 1 MLRA 722, who held that recent bona fide transactions of comparable land in the same locality provide the best evidence of value. His Lordship stated 335 as follows: “[21] It is common ground that in determining the market value, nowhere defined in the Ordinance, the courts should be guided by the principles that apply under the Land Acquisition Act - namely, market value is the price which a 340 willing seller not obliged to sell, might reasonably expect from a willing purchaser with whom he was bargaining for sale and purchase of the land (Nanyang Manufacturing Co v. CLR Johore [1953] 1 MLRH 564; [1954] 1 MLJ 69) and this amount can best be determined by looking at recent 345 sales of comparable lands in the vicinity.” [14]. In the present case, the applicant argues that market value should be assessed in accordance with established Federal Court principles. Relying on Ng Tiou Hong v Collector of Land 350 Revenue, Gombak (supra) and Nanyang Manufacturing Co v Collector of Land Revenue, Johore (supra), the applicant emphasises the “willing seller–willing buyer” test and argues that compensation must reflect an open-market price free from compulsion, sentiment, or urgency. The applicant also invokes 355 the principle of financial equivalence, citing Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Gombak v. Huat Heng (Lim Low & Sons) Sdn Bhd [1991] 1 CLJ 16; [1990] 3 MLJ 464, asserting that the award should place the landowner in the same financial position. His Lordship Hashim Yeop Sani states that the principle governing 360 compensation is well settled, namely that compensation should, so far as practicable, place the applicant in the same financial position they would have been in had there been no compulsory acquisition of their land. This principle he quoted from the textbook Compulsory Acquisition and Compensation by Sir 365 Frederick Corfield QC and RJA Carnwath at page 161, as follows: “The basic principle of the law of compensation is that the sum awarded should as far as practicable place the claimant in the same financial position as he would have been in had 370 there been no question of his land being compulsorily acquired.” [15]. Regarding valuation methodology, the applicant argues that the land’s potential should be taken into account, particularly its role 375 in the palm oil industry and its future development prospects, citing Leong Kam Hoong v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah Bukit Mertajam & Another Appeal [2001] 1 MLJ 186; [2001] 1 CLJ 1. The applicant disputes the suitability of the JPPH comparables based on distance, timing, 380 and alleged calculation errors, and proposes upward adjustments due to rising crude palm oil prices, the land’s proximity to Teluk Intan as a socio-economic centre, and planning approvals in the surrounding area. The applicant also adopts a tiered approach by grouping land values according to 385 distance from the Teluk Intan Bidor road, and on this basis proposes a market value of RM472,777 per hectare. [16]. The court, having carefully considered these submissions, found that the applicant’s comparables were materially dissimilar and, in some instances, too remote, rendering them 390 less appropriate (“kurang sesuai”). The court also rejected the fragmentation of valuation based on road proximity, holding that the land forms an adjoining estate that must be valued as a whole. Applying the burden of proof principle set out in Northern Green Ventures Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah, Hulu 395 Langat [2022] 5 MLJ 785; [2022] 9 CLJ 865, this court concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of inadequacy. Accordingly, the land administrator’s award of RM396,000 per hectare, reflecting a 10% enhancement, remains the most accurate reflection of the market value as at 400 the material date and is accepted and adopted by the court. [17]. Having regard to the principles governing the assessment of market value as set out above, and having found no basis to disturb the valuation methodology or rate adopted, the court affirms that the compensation awarded for market value in each 405 of the respective cases shall remain as determined by the land administrator. Injurious Affection under paragraph 2(d) [18]. The claim for injurious affection is grounded in paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960, 410 which obliges the court, in assessing compensation, to consider any damage sustained or likely to be sustained by the interested person at the time the land administrator takes possession of the land, where such damage arises from the acquisition, injuriously affecting the person’s remaining property, whether 415 movable or immovable and in any manner whatsoever. The provision in paragraph 2(d) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 provides: “(d) the damage, if any, sustained or likely to be sustained by the person interested at the time of the Land 420 Administrator’s taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, whether movable or immovable, in any other manner;” [19]. As explained by Justice Vazeer Alam JCA (as he then was) in 425 Northern Green Ventures Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah, Hulu Langat (supra), this provision in paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule of the Act obliges the court to consider “not only damage that are actually sustained by the applicant but also damage that is likely to be sustained.” 430 [20]. It is also settled that a claim for injurious affection may properly be pursued within land reference proceedings and need not be brought by a separate action, as held by the Federal Court in Collector of Land Revenue v Looi Lam [1981] 1 MLJ 300; [1981] CLJU 102; [1980] 1 MLRA 707 and reaffirmed by His 435 Lordship Prasad Sandosham Abraham JCA in the Court of Appeal in Zainal Azahar Mohd Zain v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang [2017] 3 MLJ 453; [2017] CLJU 71; [2017] MLRAU 481. [21]. The fundamental objective of awarding compensation for 440 injurious affection is to achieve financial equivalence and to ensure that the landowner is not left in a worse position as a result of compulsory acquisition. This principle was stated by Hashim Yeop Sani CJ (Malaya) in Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Gombak lwn Huat Heng (Lim Low & Sons) Sdn Bhd (supra), 445 where His Lordship observed that compensation for injurious affection aims to ensure financial equivalence by placing the landowner, as far as practicable, in the same position as if the compulsory acquisition had not occurred, and to indemnify the owner against any real reduction in the value or utility of the 450 remaining land caused by the acquisition. [22]. The courts have emphasised that such claims must be supported by evidence and assessed by reference to the probable consequences of the acquisition. In Northern Green Ventures Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah, Hulu Langat [2022] 5 455 MLJ 785; [2022] 9 CLJ 865, Justice Vazeer Alam JCA (as he then was) held that: “[80] Claims for severance and injurious affection are often difficult to substantiate, and the quantification and award of compensation in the case of severance must be considered following a thorough 460 examination of all the probable consequences of the acquisition and it must be based on available evidence. See: Datuk Dr Murugasu Sockalingam & Anor v Superintendent of Lands and Surveys, First Division, Sarawak [1983] 2 MLJ 336.” 465 While planning permission is not a pre-condition to a claim, there must be a realistic and non-speculative basis showing that the acquisition has caused a compensable injury. The court must also be satisfied that the loss is a direct consequence of the acquisition, as opposed to assumption or future regulatory 470 restrictions, as explained by Justice Lee Swee Seng JCA in Weng Lee Granite Quarry Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah Pulau Pinang [2025] CLJU 826; [2025] MLJU 1100; [2025] MLRAU 107. [23]. In the present case involving five lots, the acquisition resulted 475 in the installation of a permanent high-voltage transmission corridor (‘rentis’) traversing the applicant’s estate, physically dividing the land and imposing permanent restrictions on land use beneath and adjacent to the transmission lines. The courts recognise such encumbrances as capable of giving rise to 480 injurious affection where they diminish the value or development potential of the remaining land. In Leong Kam Hoong v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah Bukit Mertajam & Another Appeal (supra), Siti Norma Yaakob JCA observed that: 485 “It was unjust and unconscionable that the appellants were deprived of the full value of their lands by the presence of the rentis that were erected by a third party,” [24]. The applicant’s claim for injurious affection rests on two 490 principal grounds. First, it is contended that the presence of high-tension transmission lines and towers has caused a diminution in the value of the remaining land due to health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields (“EMF”) and adverse public perception. Secondly, the applicant asserts that 495 the acquisition has impaired access to, and the overall utility of, the residual land. In advancing this claim, reliance is placed on overseas studies, general propositions relating to market perception, and the statutory principle under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960, which 500 requires compensation to reflect damage sustained or likely to be sustained as a result of the acquisition. [25]. The respondent, while not disputing as a matter of law that injurious affection is a compensable head, adopts a more restrained and evidence-based position. The respondent 505 challenges the factual basis of the applicant’s claim, submitting that concerns relating to EMF are speculative and unsupported by conclusive scientific evidence. Respondent’s reliance is instead placed on statements from recognised authorities such as the Malaysian Nuclear Agency, the World Health 510 Organization, and Tenaga Nasional Berhad, all of which indicate that EMF exposure from transmission lines in Malaysia is far below harmful thresholds. The respondent’s contention, based on relied upon sources, that EMF exposure from transmission lines in Malaysia is far below harmful thresholds, 515 was not challenged by the applicant. The respondent further submits that public perception alone, in the absence of proof of actual diminution in value, is insufficient to base their claim for compensation. [26]. The court is mindful that injurious affection is ultimately a 520 question of fact, to be determined on credible and probative evidence of real or likely loss directly attributable to the acquisition. General fears, disputed scientific views, or foreign studies that do not reflect local conditions are not enough on their own to justify compensation. Equally, claims for injurious 525 affection must be calculated in a reasonable way and supported by valuation evidence, and not based on arbitrary percentage reductions without proper proof. [27]. That said, this court accepts that the transmission corridor constitutes a physical encumbrance capable of giving rise to 530 injurious affection. As recognised in the authorities referred to above, the potential value and future utility of the remaining land may be taken into account when determining the quantum of compensation. In the present case, SP1 himself admitted the existence of the ‘rentis’ corridor and the physical restrictions 535 imposed on the residual land. The court also takes judicial notice that the high-voltage transmission line physically cuts through the land, creates a permanent ‘rentis’ corridor, restricts permissible land use beneath and adjacent to it, and practically diminishes the utility, enjoyment, and development potential of 540 the remaining land. [28]. Having regard to the evidence, the nature of the physical encumbrance, and the applicable legal principles, the two learned Assessors unanimously agreed that the applicant has suffered compensable injurious affection and that an award 545 should be made under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule. The agreed sum of award for the respective cases represents a reasoned and proportionate assessment of the diminution caused by the transmission corridor, and is neither speculative nor excessive. The court is satisfied that this award accords with 550 established principles of law and achieves the objective of fair indemnification. Accordingly, the court accepts and adopts the unanimous assessment by the assessor as court’s award as compensation for injurious affection for the respective five cases as follows: 555 a) AA-15-7-01/2024 (Lot 1186): The court awards RM122,760.00 as compensation for injurious affection. b) AA-15-8-01/2024 (Lot 7379): The court awards RM143,550.00 as compensation for injurious affection. c) AA-15-9-01/2024 (Lot 7518): The court awards 560 RM147,114.00 as compensation for injurious affection. d) AA-15-10-01/2024 (Lot 20388): The court awards RM60,984.00 as compensation for injurious affection. e) AA-15-12-01/2024 (Lot 59855): The court awards RM384,120.00 as compensation for injurious affection. 565 Claims for severance [29]. In respect of the claim for severance compensation under paragraph 2(c) of the First Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, in respect of all the cases, the assessors found a valid claim for severance for all except for suit AA-15- 570 10-01/2024 (Lot 20388). Although a small portion of the land was acquired from lot 20388, the remaining land was not physically severed into separate or unusable parcels. The evidence showed that the acquisition involved only a minor strip at the western portion and did not result in the land being split 575 into two independent or inaccessible portions. The court accepts the assessors’ conclusion that the residual land remained contiguous, functional, and economically usable as a whole. In the absence of proof of actual severance or loss of utility attributable to the compulsory acquisition, no 580 compensation for severance is warranted for suit No: AA-15-10- 01/2024 (Lot 20388). [30]. In respect of cases other than suit no: AA-15-10-01/2024 (Lot 20388), the court, having evaluated them, found the physical impact of the acquisition on the remaining portions of the land 585 for each respective lot. The court's findings are as follows: a) For Lot 1186 (Suit AA-15-7-01/2024) and Lot 59855 (Suit AA-15-12-01/2024), it is undisputed that the acquisition for the 275kv transmission line corridor physically severs the land, dividing it into eastern and 590 western portions. In the case of Lot 59855, the court notes the assessor's observation that an existing transmission line already split the land and the current acquisition serves as an extension of that corridor. While the applicant sought a significant increase in compensation 595 (up to 10% of market value), the court finds that the land administrator’s awards of RM226,857.60 and RM564,307.20, respectively, are reasonable and sufficient to indemnify the applicant for the diminution in value arising from the severance of these large plantation 600 areas. b) Regarding Lot 7379 (Suit AA-15-8-01/2024) and Lot 7518 (Suit AA-15-9-01/2024), the evidence from the 'Pelan Pengambilan' shows that the acquisition affects only small strips of land along the western boundaries of 605 both lots. Unlike the other lots, these lands are not split into separate portions, and the main body of the land remains intact. Although the learned private assessor opined that no severance compensation was technically warranted given the minimal impact, the court notes that 610 the land administrator had already awarded RM6,849.00 for Lot 7379 (Suit AA-15-8-01/2024) and RM31,937.40 for Lot 7518 (Suit AA-15-9-01/2024). In the interest of fairness and in the absence of evidence proving these sums to be inadequate, the court maintains the original 615 awards and therefore, the court finds no basis to interfere with the land administrator's assessments. Other claims submitted by the applicant but not allowed [31]. The applicant advanced several additional heads of claim beyond market value and injurious affection, including claims 620 for disturbance or loss of income (‘kacau ganggu / hilang hasil’), and reinstatement or restoration costs (‘kesan pemulihan’). These claims were fully canvassed in the valuation reports, the written submissions of both parties, and during the evidence before the court. However, both the 625 government assessor and the private assessor were unanimous that these claims were not substantiated on the facts or supported by the evidence, and accordingly did not recommend any award under these heads. [32]. In particular, for disturbance and loss of income (“kacau 630 ganggu/hilang hasil”), the applicant did not adduce evidence of actual disturbance to ongoing operations, loss of income, or interruption to agricultural activities beyond what is ordinarily incidental to acquisition. No documentary or concrete evidence was produced to demonstrate quantifiable loss of yield, income, 635 or business disruption. The assessors correctly observed that such claims cannot rest on general assertions and must be supported by cogent proof of actual loss. The court therefore agrees that this head of claim was speculative and properly rejected. 640 [33]. In respect of the claim for reinstatement costs (“kesan pemulihan”), including alleged costs for reinstatement works such as access roads and drainage. Both assessors found that no reliable evidence was produced to establish that such remedial works were necessary, incurred, or reasonably 645 foreseeable as a consequence of the acquisition. In particular, no invoices, expert reports, or construction estimates were tendered to substantiate the claim. The court accepts the assessors’ view that compensation for restoration costs must be grounded in proof and supported by credible evidence, 650 neither of which was present in this case. Therefore, this head of claim was also speculative and properly rejected. [34]. Having considered the applicant’s submissions, the respondent’s rebuttal, the valuation evidence, and the unanimous opinions of the assessors, the court is satisfied that 655 the rejection of these additional claims is justified in law and on the facts. These claims were not supported by sufficient evidence, did not meet the legal thresholds under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, and would not accord with the principle of fair and reasonable compensation. Accordingly, the court 660 affirms the assessors’ unanimous position that no award should be made for disturbance or restoration. Conclusion [35]. For the reasons above, and in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the assessors, the court makes the award as follows 665 for the respective land reference cases: a) AA-15-7-01/2024 (Lot 1186): The court awarded total compensation of RM972,565.20, comprising RM622,947.60 for market value and RM226,857.60 for severance as maintained from the land administrator’s 670 award, together with an additional award of RM122,760.00 for injurious affection, resulting in an overall increase of RM122,760.00. b) AA-15-8-01/2024 (Lot 7379): The court awarded total compensation of RM755,011.80, comprising 675 RM604,612.80 for market value and RM6,849.00 for severance as maintained from the land administrator’s award, together with an additional award of RM143,550.00 for injurious affection, resulting in an overall increase of RM143,550.00. 680 c) AA-15-9-01/2024 (Lot 7518): The court awarded total compensation of RM804,810.60, comprising RM625,759.20 for market value and RM31,937.40 for severance as maintained from the land administrator’s award, together with an additional award of 685 RM147,114.00 for injurious affection, resulting in an overall increase of RM147,114.00. d) AA-15-10-01/2024 (Lot 20388): The court awarded total compensation of RM158,716.80, comprising RM97,732.80 for market value as maintained from the 690 land administrator’s award, together with an additional award of RM60,984.00 for injurious affection, resulting in an overall increase of RM60,984.00. e) AA-15-12-01/2024 (Lot 59855): The court awarded total compensation of RM2,905,855.20, comprising 695 RM1,957,428.00 for market value and RM564,307.20 for severance as maintained from the land administrator’s award, together with an additional award of RM384,120.00 for injurious affection, resulting in an overall increase of RM384,120.00. 700 [36]. In respect of interest, deposits, and costs in each case, the Court orders that interest at the rate of five per cent (5%) per annum shall accrue on the additional compensation awarded, commencing from the date of issuance of Form K until full 705 settlement is made. All deposits paid in respect of these references shall be returned to the applicant. The costs of the assessors are fixed at RM500.00 per sitting for each of the government assessor and the private assessor, for each case. These costs shall be borne by the applicant and are to be paid 710 within seven (7) days from the date of this decision. Dated : 29 December 2025 715 [MOSES SUSAYAN] JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH, PERAK 720 Counsel: For the Applicant : Ong Kheng Leong 725 (together with Anisha Nabila binti Azhan) Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs Ghazi & Lim] Kuala Lumpur 730 For the Respondent : Mohd Fitri bin Sadarudin Senior Federal Counsel State Legal Advisor Office Ipoh, Perak 735 Headnotes Land Law — Acquisition of land — Market value — Injurious affection — Severance — Multiple land references heard 740 together — High Court sitting with government assessor and private assessor under s 40 Land Acquisition Act 1960 (‘LAA’) — Five neighbouring lots compulsorily acquired for 275kV electricity transmission line — Whether market value under para 2(a) First Schedule disturbed — 745 Whether applicant established inadequacy of land administrator’s uniform rate — Court held determination of market value a finding of fact — Comparative method safest guide — Applicant’s comparables found materially dissimilar. Land Law — Acquisition of land — Compensation — Injurious 750 affection — Para 2(d)