Sime Darby Plantation (Peninsular) Sdn. Bhd. v Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Langat (BA-15-83-10/2021)

These land reference proceedings are in relation to certain lands of the Applicant which were acquired for the purpose of “Permohonan Pengambilan Tanah di bawah Seksyen 3(1)(b) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (Akta 486) bagi Projek Talian Penghantaran 500kv dari Loji Janakuasa Kitarpadu Gas (TADMAX) di Pulau Indah ke Pencawang Masuk Utama (PMU) Olak Lempit Daerah Kuala Langat Selangor” (“Project”).

Enquiries before the Land Administrator over the acquisition of the scheduled lands under the Project had been conducted. On 03.05.2021, awards in the form of Borang G were given. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the awards. It then lodged its objections by way of Borang N with the Land Administrator.

The objections were then referred by the Land Administrator to this Court. They are: BA-15-67-10/2021 (“Kes 67”) - concerns the acquisition of 66,900 square metres of all that piece of land held under title No. GRN 48487, Lot 702, Mukim Tanjung Duabelas, Daerah Kuala Langat (“Lot 702”); BA-15-74-10/2021 (“Kes 74”) - concerns the acquisition of 36,990 square metres of all that piece of land held under title No. GRN 334133, Lot 18141, Mukim Jugra, Daerah Kuala Langat (“Lot 18141”); BA-15-81-10/2021 (“Kes 81”) - concerns the acquisition of 331,940 square metres of all that piece of land held under title No. GRN 334108, Lot S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ 6 958, Mukim Jugra, Daerah Kuala Langat (“Lot 958”); BA-15-83-10/2021 (“Kes 83”) - concerns the acquisition of 26,780 square metres of all that piece of land held under title No. GRN 334132, Lot 18283 (then Lot 18140), Mukim Jugra, Daerah Kuala Langat (“Lot 18283”); BA-15-104-12/2021 (“Kes 104”) - concerns the acquisition of 372,210 square metres of all that piece of land held under title No. GRN 339741, Lot 2601, Mukim Jugra, Daerah Kuala Langat (“Lot 2601”). (Lot 702, Lot 18141, Lot 958, Lot 18283, Lot 2601 shall be collectively referred as “Lots”)

Pending the hearing of the land reference, the Applicant filed an application seeking to raise new grounds in its Borang N. The application was dismissed by this Court on 13 June 2023. The decision of this Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 22 March 2024.

It is pertinent to note that the Applicant had also filed an application in each and every case seeking that the Applicant be given the liberty to call its private valuer for the purpose of giving evidence by way of chief examination during the hearing S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ of the land reference. Upon agreement of both parties, such application was allowed before the learned Deputy Registrar on 11.01.2023 and an order to that effect was recorded.

These land reference cases were called together to be heard on 24.10.2024. Acting in accordance with the agreement of both parties as recorded before the learned Deputy Registrar on 11.01.2023 mentioned above, the Applicant proceeded to call its valuer from Messrs. Iskandar Associates (“Iskandar”) to give evidence for all five cases aforementioned. The Applicant’s valuer was asked by the learned counsel of the Applicant, to provide an explanation as to his basis of valuation for all the five Lots.

It was at this juncture the learned Legal Officer acting for the Respondent interjected. She raised an objection on the reliance by the Applicant of the valuation report prepared by Iskandar (“Iskandar Report”) for the purpose of Lot 702 (Kes 67), Lot 18141 (Kes 74), Lot 958 (Kes 81), and Lot 18283 (Kes 83).

The objection by the Respondent was that during the enquiry before the Land Administrator, the valuation reports for Lot 702 (Kes 67), Lot 18141 (Kes 74), Lot 958 (Kes 81), and Lot 18283 (Kes 83) were all prepared by one Messrs. Ian Scoot International (“Scoot Report”). For this reason, the Applicant cannot now sought to rely on the Iskandar Report for Lot 702 (Kes 67), Lot 18141 (Kes 74), Lot 958 (Kes 81), and Lot 18283 (Kes 83) to support their case.

This Court then adjourned the matter and ordered that parties to submit on the issue raised by the Respondent.

It can be observed that during the enquiry before the Land Administrator for Lot 2601 (Kes 104), the Applicant had produced the valuation report prepared by Iskandar on 24.09.2021. This particular report was annexed as part of the bundle of documents filed together with Borang O by the Land Administrator. Therefore Kes 104 is not similar to the other cases. There is no issue on the reliance of valuation reports prepared by different valuer for Kes 104 because there is no different valuer to begin with.

A quick perusal of both the reports for Lot 2601 (Kes 104) – one annexed with Borang O while the other was filed by the Applicant in this Court (Encl. 6 in Kes 104) – showed that they are on the face of it, identical. Both reports are prepared on 24.09.2021. The Applicant had in its written submissions stated that both the reports “are substantially the same”. The Applicant did not say that they are the same report. No explanation however was given on what are the difference between the two. The Respondent had during the case management before the learned Deputy Registrar, clarified its position that its objection raised during the hearing on 24.10.2024, equally applies to Kes 104.

Before the matter was called up for the second time, the

Applicant had filed a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of Kes The land reference proceedings therefore proceeded on the four remaining lots.

The Applicant’s application to include new grounds as part of its objection mentioned in Borang N had been refused. Nonetheless, the Applicant sought to claim a higher compensation than what was sought during the enquiry before the Land Administrator, through the filing of the Iskandar Report before this Court. This is the application before this court now.

The Respondent took the position that the Applicant ought not to rely on the Iskandar Report for the purpose of land reference in light that there is no application being made beforehand for it to be relied by the Applicant in the instant land reference proceedings. The Applicant, according to the Respondent, is bound by the Scoot Report in light that it had never been withdrawn. The Applicant had claimed for a substantially higher amount of compensation through the Iskandar Report, than the Scoot Report. The Iskandar Report too covered all other matters not expressly mentioned in the Borang N. The reliance of the Iskandar Report would mean that the Applicant is now surreptitiously claiming for something not within the scope of Borang N. The Iskandar Report if being admitted would mean that the Respondent is being placed to suffer the consequence S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ of having to possibly bear a higher compensation although it was the result of the failure on the part of the Applicant to prepare an accurate report in the first place.

The Applicant submitted that there is nowhere in the Land Acquisition Act 1960 prohibiting the use of different report at different stage. Other than that, the Respondent is now estopped from raising objection in light that the Valuation and Property Services Department (“JPPH”) had actively prepared their rebuttal based on the Iskandar Report filed by the Applicant in this Court. The Respondent too failed to cite any authority to support its proposition that leave of Court is necessary for the Iskandar Report to be admitted. The Applicant argued that if the objection of the Respondent is upheld, it will have far reaching repercussion such that the landowners will refrain from adducing valuation reports during the enquiry before the Land Administrator and will choose to wait until after Borang N has been referred to the Court. The effect is that more land reference cases will be encouraged.

As alluded to earlier, the application by the Applicant to adduce new grounds of objection had been dismissed by this Court and the Court of Appeal had upheld the findings of this Court. The perusal of the Iskandar Report filed by the Applicant in the instant land reference proceedings reveal that the Applicant had claimed for compensation under headings such as severance, accommodation works and cost for environmental impact assessment report, which, if taken into account as a whole, S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ would substantially inflate the total amount claimable by the Applicant in the instant land reference proceedings.

The compensations under those headings mentioned above are, coincidentally, the same exact headings the Applicant had earlier sought to add over the grounds of objection which the Applicant mentioned in its Borang N. To allow the Iskandar Report to be considered in determining the compensation over the scheduled land would mean that the Applicant be allowed to have a backdoor access to claim for compensation over the grounds which are not in its Borang N, bypassing the findings of this Court and subsequently the decision of the Court of Appeal, more so in the absence of any application being made beforehand.

Secondly, subparagraph 2(1), Third Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 must be taken into consideration. It reads:

The applicant's valuer's report alone must establish a prima facie case for the applicant.

One could glean from the foregoing provision that during a land reference proceedings, the Applicant’s valuer’s report must itself establish a prima facie case for the Applicant. The provision did not stipulate that the valuer’s report if adduced by the Applicant would automatically be taken as a prima facie case had been established. There is still duty upon the Applicant to establish a prima facie case based on the valuer’s S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ report adduced, failing which the Applicant’s case is bound to fail (see: Blue Valley Plantation Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Cameron Highlands & Anor [2023] 9 CLJ 179, CA; Pengerang Farm Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kota Tinggi [2017] 1 LNS 66, CA at para [13]; A Karunathan Arunasalam & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling & Another Appeal [2011] 7

What transpired before this Court is that the Applicant had by producing the Iskandar Report claimed for an amount substantially higher than the Scott Report which was produced during the enquiry before the Land Administrator. In this regard, reference to paragraph 4, Third Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is relevant:

Limitation on award Where at any enquiry made by the Land Administrator under section 12, or in any statement in writing required by the Land Administrator under subsection 11(2), any person interested has:

made a valuation of or claimed compensation for any land or any interest therein, such person shall not at any time be awarded any amount in excess of the amount stated or claimed;

refused, or has omitted without sufficient reason to be allowed by a Judge, to make a claim to compensation, such person shall not at any time be awarded any amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Land Administrator.

As mentioned earlier, the Applicant’s application to include new grounds as part of its objection mentioned in Borang N had been refused. The Applicant however has attempted to claim for a higher compensation than what it had asked for during the enquiry before the Land Administrator, through the filing of the Iskandar Report before this Court. Reading paragraph 4, Third Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 in its totality, it appears that the Applicant should not be allowed to do so. The Applicant did not explain or attempt to explain as to why the Iskandar Report is used instead of the Scott Report which the Applicant had relied on during the enquiry.

The circumstances beg further question that the Applicant had failed to explain, when one is to take into consideration the position of the Applicant during its submission that it will merely proceed on the land value. The difference of the land value between the two reports is summarised by the Respondent as follow (the valuation should be “per square metre” and not “per hectare”).

The Iskandar Report for the purpose of the instant land reference proceedings relied on by the Applicant covers three S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ lots, namely Lot 18141 (Kes 74), Lot 958 (Kes 81), and Lot 18283 (Kes 83). In page 11 (page 17 pdf) of the Iskandar Report, the Applicant suggests that all three lot be valued at RM15 per square foot or RM1,610,000 per hectare (or RM161.00 per square metre), then page 14 (page 20 pdf) there is an adjustment for Lot 958 (Kes 81) to reflect the zoning status of that lot as residential, hence, the valuation of RM18 per quare foot or RM1,937,500 per hectare (or RM193.75 per square metre).

It can be observed that other than Lot 958 (Kes 81), the Applicant had asked for a lower value for the other two Lot 18141 (Kes 74) and Lot 18283 (Kes 83). The difference between the two reports, in the light that the Applicant had actually asked for a lower value, raises a question as to which report this Court should take into account. There are two conflicting reports before this Court, and the Applicant had failed to explain or attempt to explain how this Court can reconcile the two valuation reports.

The resultant effect is that whether the Applicant had through the Iskandar Report been able to establish a prima facie case. The valuations between the two reports conflict with each other, with one substantially higher and the other two much lower. There is a vacuum in the case of the Applicant which the Applicant had failed to fill. The vacuum is that there is doubt as to whether the claim of the Applicant through the Iskandar Report can be said to be substantiated so as to establish a S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ prima facie case, in light that there is a conflicting report during the enquiry before the Land Administrator.

The Applicant did not explain or attempt to explain as to why Iskandar Report is used instead of the Scott Report the Applicant relied on during the enquiry.

The objection by the Respondent was that during the enquiry before the Land Administrator, the valuation reports for Lot 702 (Kes 67), Lot 18141 (Kes 74), Lot 958 (Kes 81), and Lot 18283 (Kes 83) were all prepared by one Messrs. Ian Scoot International (“Scoot Report”). For this reason, the Applicant cannot now sought to rely on the Iskandar Report for Lot 702 (Kes 67), Lot 18141 (Kes 74), Lot 958 (Kes 81), and Lot 18283 (Kes 83) to support their case.

The Applicant submitted that the Land Acquisition Act 1960 does not prohibit the use of a different report at the land reference stage. Other than that, the Respondent is now estopped from raising an objection in light that the Valuation and Property Services Department (“JPPH”) had actively prepared their rebuttal based on the Iskandar Report filed by the Applicant in this Court.

This Court had previously dismissed the Applicant's attempt to introduce new grounds of objection, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. In the current land reference proceedings, the Applicant submitted the Iskandar Report, which includes compensation claims (e.g., severance, accommodation works, S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ environmental impact assessment costs) that would significantly increase the total claim. These same compensation headings were the ones previously rejected as additional grounds in the Applicant’s Borang N. Allowing the Iskandar Report would effectively let the Applicant reintroduce previously dismissed claims without proper application, thereby circumventing both the High Court and Court of Appeal rulings.

In this regard, for the aforementioned reasons, this court is of the view the new Private Valuation Report, the Iskandar Report is an attempt to circumvent the decision of this court and the Court of Appeal in not allowing the Applicant to amend the Borang N. Moreover, no reason was given by the Applicant to explain the need for a new Private Valuation Report. Hence, this court is of the view this application to file a new Private Valuation Report ought to fail. This court therefore dismisses this application to file a new Private Valuation Report. Cost of RM1000 to be paid to the Respondent. Dated: 15th August 2025 SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, SHAH ALAM S/N E18u8y5d20ysO7jGb56hQ Counsel: For the Appellant: Chua Por Ron Mohd Hisyam Hilmi bin Abd Rahman Messrs Chua & Partners Advocates & Solicitors Suite 8-12A-6, Level 12A, Menara Olympia, No. 8, Jalan Raja Chulan 50200 Kuala Lumpur 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.