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 (d) 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” [12] Berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip di atas, mahkamah ini akan meneliti dan menganalisa permohonan rujukan tanah pemohon. Analisa dan Dapatan [13] Dalam rujukan tanah ini, mahkamah ini dibantu oleh Puan Rosliza binti Ramli pengapit kerajaan dari Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta dan Encik Azman 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. Secara ringkasnya, penilai kerajaan berpendapat bahawa awad yang diberikan oleh responden boleh diberikan kenaikkan sebanyak RM10.00 semeter persegi, manakala pengapit swasta berpendapat awad responden harus melambangkan nilai pasaran dan oleh yang demikian awad responden dicadangkan supaya dikekalkan. [14] Dalam menentukan pampasan bagi pengambilan tanah di bawah APT, mahkamah hendaklah merujuk kepada Perenggan 2 Jadual Pertama kepada APT. [15] 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.” [16] Keperluan untuk mengambil kira seksyen 2 Jadual Pertama kepada APT 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. Nilai Pasaran Tanah [17] Pihak pemohon berhujah bahawa perbandingan oleh penilai pemohon merupakan perbandingan terbaik bagi menentukan nilai pasaran Lot Subjek. Untuk ini pihak pemohon merujuk kepada kes Nanyang Manufaturing Co v The Collector of Land Revenue, Johore [1954] 1 MLJ 69 yang menyatakan: “I consider that the safest guide to determine the fair market value is evidence of sales of the same land or similar land in the neighbourhood after making due allowance for all the circumstances.” [Emphasis added] [18] Dalam kes rujukan tanah ini, penilai pemohon telah mengemukakan 5 bukti perbandingan dan penilai responden (Kerajaan) mengemukakan 4 bukti perbandingan. Tiada perbandingan sepunya (common comparables) daripada kedua-dua penilai. [19] Mahkamah telah meneliti perbandingan-perbandingan yang dikemukakan oleh penilai pemohon dan dapati kesemua perbandingan adalah tidak sesuai. Ini adalah kerana kesemua perbandingan yang dikemukakan adalah berdasarkan Circular Bursa Announcement yang pada pandangan mahkamah ini bukanlah perkara yang perlu diambil kira dalam penentuan nilai pasaran Lot Subjek. Perbandingan 1 (Lot 7), Perbandingan 2 (Lot 4 dan Lot 5), Perbandingan 3 (Lot 3) dan Perbandingan 5 (Lot 5049) yang dikemukakan tidak mempunyai bukti pindahmilik. [20] Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa oleh kerana tiada bukti bahawa pindahmilik tersebut didaftarkan atau disetemkan di Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri, maka perbandingan-perbandingan ini harus ditolak kerana tiada rekod pembuktian atau kesahihan pindahmilik berlaku ke atas perbandingan yang digunakan. [21] Bagi perbandingan 4 (Lot 6496), mahkamah ini berpandangan ianya tidak sesuai dijadikan perbandingan oleh kerana ianya bukanlah tanah ladang sepertimana Lot Subjek. Dalam erti kata lain, Perbandingan 4 (Lot 6496) berbeza dengan Lot Subjek. Perbandingan 4 (Lot 6496) merupakan pindahmilik small holding dan bukan merupakan pindahmilik tanah ladang. [22] Berhubung perbandingan yang dikemukakan oleh responden, mahkamah ini dengan dibantu pengapit berpandangan bahawa dua daripada perbandingan tidak dapat diterima. Alasan perbandingan 1 (Lot 1593) adalah ditolak ialah tarikh pindahmilik pada 23.09.2020 adalah lebih rendah daripada kadar pindahmilik perbandingan lain yang tahun lebih ke belakang. Sehubungan itu, kadar pindakmilik sebagai bukti perbandingan tidak menunjukkan pasaran sebenar di kawasan berkenaan. [23] Manakala bagi Perbandingan 4 (PT 42625), tarikh pindahmilik yang berbeza lebih kurang 4 tahun 6 bulan dan kedudukan fizikal Perbandingan 4 adalah jauh dari Lot Subjek. Maka, mahkamah menolak perbandingan ini. [24] Mahkamah mendapati Perbandingan 2 (Lot 91) dan Perbandingan 3 (Lot 93) adalah perbandingan terhampir dengan Lot Subjek dan dijadikan asas nilaian. [25] Dalam menerima atau menolak perbandingan yang dikemukakan oleh pemohon dan responden, mahkamah meneliti peruntukkan