WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang (BA-15-153-12/2023)

NG TANN NA [NO. K/P: 701029-01-5436]

R. SUKUMARAN A/L K. RAMAN [NO. K/P: 751112-10-5243]

SIH SEE SEY [NO. K/P: 490725-10-5067] S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023,

THIAGU A/L NYANASELAN [NO. K/P: 690531-10-5057]

TAN YOAK YAN [NO. K/P: 630528-10-7348]

LIM BEE LIAN [NO. K/P: 690531-10-5057] (sebagai Wakil Harta Pusaka Chng Poh Hoo, Si Mati (No. K/P. 631022-10- 5577)

LIM THIAN CHAI [NO. K/P.: 620318-10-5265]

LEE AH SENG [NO. K/P.: 531205-10-5133]

TAN KOK SIN [NO. K/P.: 651028-10-5103]

LEE KEE CHONG [NO. K/P.: 560117-10-6067]

LOW BOON MENG [NO. K/P:75010-10-5429] (sebagai Wakil Harta Pusaka Law Tek Teh a/l Law Kho Chong, Si Mati (No. K/P: 340403-10-5247))

DEEPA NISHA A/P SUBRAMANIAM [NO. K/P: 851106-14-6186]

NINETTE ANNE A/P SUBRAMANIAM [NO. K/P: 910208-14-5384] S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023,

GOH SIEW CHING [NO. K/P: 460513-10-5172]

NG HONG [NO. K/P:601018-10-5665] (dalam kapasiti peribadinya dan juga sebagai Wakil Harta Pusaka Ng Kit Leng, Si Mati (No. K/P: 1195584)) PENCELAH-PENCELAH S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN RUJUKAN TANAH NO: BA-15-34-08/2023 Dalam perkara Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Lot 10478, GRN 20088, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. LBL TRADING AND E PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-35-08/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. MTM NARGIS ENTERPRISE S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-36-08/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. HOE VENTURES SDN. BHD. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-37-08/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. PEMBINAAN TUMPUAN CERGAS SDN. BHD. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-38-08/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. TAN CHAI SIN S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-39-09/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. MULTI SAWIT SDN. BHD. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-45-09/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. KIM GUAN INDUSTRIAL TRADING S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-46-09/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. YW YANG WEI PILING S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-47-09/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. JW PERMAI RESOURCES SDN. BHD. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-48-09/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. T.CHELVEE TRADING S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-56-09/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. MIDAS PLUS SDN. BHD. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, RUJUKAN TANAH NO. BA-15-57-09/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 38 (5) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; Dan Dalam perkara Pengambilan Tanah Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping Banting; Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan Persimpangan Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan. MIDAS PLUS SDN. BHD. GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, Introduction [1] This is a land reference matter arising from the compulsory acquisition of a portion of a landed property for the construction of a phase of the West Coast Expressway. [2] At the hearing, this court, with the assistance of two assessors, made certain orders to the compensation awarded by the Land Administrator. This is the judgment for the reasons of this court in coming to that decision. Factual Background [3] The facts are garnered from documents filed in court with modifications. [4] 13 land references involving a piece of land held under GRN 20088 were consolidated by an Order dated 6.5.2024. The land references are:

Land Reference No. BA-15-153- highway concessionaire and paymaster of compulsory acquisition costs for the 233-km West Coast Expressway (E32). S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023,

12 land references by persons interested of the BA-15-34- -15-35- -15- 36- -15- 38-09/202 - 15-39- -15-45- BA-15-46- -15-47- -15-48- -15- 56-09/2023 -15-57- (collectively Land References ) [5] The Land References concern partial acquisition of the Scheduled Land under paragraph 3(1)(a), of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 Pantai Barat (Taiping-Banting); Pakej 3 (Dari Persimpangan SAE . , made awards of compensation to landowners and persons interested of the Scheduled Land, totalling the sum of . [6] :

the market value of the Scheduled Land,

severance, and

land development costs. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, [7] The Amended Form N submitted by WCESB seeks a reduction in claims granted by the PTD. The Form N submitted by the Persons Interested are primarily seeking ancillary costs that were previously denied by the PTD. The Legal Principles [8] The right to property is guaranteed in Article 13 of the Federal Constitution which reads: erson shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property [9] The law and proceedings relating to land acquisition are governed by the LAA 1960. This is a special Act which provisions must be strictly adhered to. [10] The Court of Appeal in Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd v. Inch Kenneth Kajang Rubber Ltd & Anor Other Appeals [2011] 4 MLJ 403 observed as follows: 0 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 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, 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 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 seen from s. 45(2) of the LAA 1960 which reads:

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 [11] Section 14 of the LAA 1960 makes provision that awards of compensation for compulsory acquisition are assessed and decided on by a land administrator. [12] In the event there is any objection in respect of an award made by the land administrator, Section 36 of the LAA 1960 confers jurisdiction on the High Court to determine. In this regard, section 36 provides:

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 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023,

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;

the apportionment of compensation for such right or interest;

the persons to whom such compensation is payable;

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 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. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, [13] Section 37 of the LAA reads:

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 the amount 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 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, a person interested and may make objections on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1). [Emphasis added] [14] 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: 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 circumstances of the case. The judge is also at liberty to depart from the opinion of either of the S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, assessors and decide on the reasonable amount of compensation to be [15] Arahan Amalan Hakim Besar Malaya Bil. 1 Tahun 2017, dated 6 June 2017 which outlines the conduct and procedure of handling land acquisition cases by the land reference court that ought to be strictly adhered to. Analysis and Findings [16] During the Land References proceedings, this court was assisted by a government assessor, Puan Rosliza binti Ramli from Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta Malaysia, and a private assessor, Encik of Intra Harta Consultants Sdn Bhd. The assessors reports are annexed as Annexure A and Annexure B respectively. [17] The law provides that in having referred its objections to the land reference court, the applicant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie of compensation is inadequate. Wah Yahya J (as he then was) in Ong Yan & Anor v. Collector of Land Revenue, Alor Gajah, Malacca [1986] 1 MLJ 405 in the following terms: In land acquisition cases the burden is on the applicant to make out a prima facie case of inadequate award. Only when he succeeds in doing so would the respondent be called upon to introduce his evidence; S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, [18] The compensation proposed valuer, the Persons Interested valuer and the government s valuer are as reproduced below: PERKARA KERAJAAN (JPPH) (CBRE WTW S/B) TUAN TANAH/ BANGUNAN (SANDROPS) AWARD PENTADBIR TANAH Tanah Luas diwarta : 15,227.00 meter persegi (pengambilan sebahagian lot) (RM830.00 smp) RM10,049,820.00 (RM660.00 smp) Tiada dalam laporan yang dilantik (semasa perbicaraan tanah, diwakili oleh Tetuan Raine & Horne International) (RM830.00 smp) Bangunan dan struktur Tiada Tiada RM17,256,000.00 Tiada Pecah Pisah (Severance) ke atas tanah baki Luas tanah baki: Plot A: 21,532.00 meter persegi Plot B: 3,711.00 meter persegi Plot A: Tiada Plot B: RM308,013.00 (kejatuhan nilai tanah baki @ 10%) Plot A: RM710,556.00 (kejatuhan nilai tanah baki @ 5%) Plot B: RM489,852.00 (kejatuhan nilai tanah baki @ 20%) Jumlah: RM1,200,408.00 Tiada dalam laporan yang dilantik (semasa perbicaraan tanah, diwakili oleh Tetuan Raine & Horne International) Pecah pisah dan kecacatan tanah: RM1,201,591.00 (kejatuhan nilai tanah baki untuk Plot A adalah 5% dan Plot B adalah 10%) Kesan Mudarat (Injurious Affection) ke atas tanah baki Tiada Tiada Tiada Tiada Tiada Tiada RM32,626,566.24 Kos Pembangunan S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, Kos Sampingan dan Kerja Pemulihan Tanah: RM2,644,808.00 Jumlah (keseluruhan) RM12,946,423.00 RM11,250,228.00 RM49,882,566.24 RM16,484,809.00 [19] The PTD, the respondent made an award of a total compensation sum of RM 16,484,809.00. This amount is made up of RM 12,638,410.00 for land value, RM 1,201,591.00 for severance and RM2,644,808.00 for development land costs. [20] WCESB objected against the award of the respondent on the basis that the amount of compensation was too high. WCESB sought the following prayers from this court:

the market value of the Scheduled Land be determined at RM660psm;

severance for Part A be fixed at 5% of the market value of the Scheduled Land in the sum of RM710,556 and Part B at 20% of the market value of the Scheduled Land in the sum of RM489,852;

for land development costs totalling RM2,644,800 be set aside;

the claims pursued by the 5 Persons Interested vide LRs 37, 39, 46, 47 and 48, be struck out for want of a prima facie case; S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023,

the additional claims pursued by the 7 Persons Interested vide LRs 34, 35, 36, 38, 45, 56 and 57, be rejected by this Honourable Court;

if necessary, the landowners and/ or Persons Interested be ordered to refund and pay any excess compensation to WCESB within 2 months from the date of Judgment;

costs to be paid to WCESB; and

deposit for lodgement of Form N be refunded to WCESB. [21] This court will now consider the objections raised by WCESB. Market Value of the Scheduled Land [22] In determining the amount of adequate compensation, section 2 of the First Schedule to the LAA is crucial in the assessment of compensation arising out from a compulsory acquisition. [23] The Court of Appeal in JH Capital Services Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling [2020] 4 MLJ 1 highlighted the need to consider paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the LAA in making an assessment on amount of compensation as reproduced below: current market value based on the comparable transactions was considered and accepted by the Judge. The learned Judge did aware S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, and had considered about the proposed future development of the said [24] The Federal Court in Ng Tiou Hong v. Collector of Land Revenue Gombak [1984] 2 MLJ 35, explained the main principles in determining the market value as follows: 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-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 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, 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 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 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 [25] In determining market value of the Land as stated in paragraph 2(a) of the First Schedule, the land administrator and the Court must give consideration to the profit value of the land at the time of acquisition. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, In addition, paragraph 1(1A) of the First Schedule allows flexibility when assessing market value, and it reads: may use any suitable method of valuation to arrive at the market value provided that regard may be had to the prices paid for the recent sales of lands with similar characteristics as the scheduled land which are situated within the vicinity of the scheduled land and with particular consideration being given to the last transaction on the scheduled land within two years from the date with reference to which the scheduled [26] In Ng Tiou Hong (supra) the Federal Court stated: position in the locality at or prior to the time of acquisition. The process paid for such sales can be used as comparables subject to making allowances for all the [27] WCESB submitted that both JPPH and CBRE-WTW employed the comparison approach, using comparable properties to assess the market value of the Scheduled Land. In contrast, Sandprops applied the cost approach to evaluate the value of the buildings impacted by the acquisition, along with the associated ancillary costs. Sandprops' valuation did not cover the market value of the Scheduled Land. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, [28] It was further submitted by WCESB that the respondent, the PTD did not provide an explanation for how the market value of the Scheduled Land was determined at RM830 per square metre. According to WCESB, this contravenes well-established legal principles, which require a decision-maker to justify their conclusions. WCESB cited the cases of The State Minerals Management Authority, Sarawak & Ors v Gegah Optima Resources Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 CLJ 279 (Court of Appeal) and Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises & Ors & Another Appeal [2023] 1 LNS 694. [29] Valuer submitted three (3) comparables, whilst the four (4) comparables. There are 2 common comparables used by both valuers. The valuers for both WCESB and the PTD agree that the Scheduled Land is agricultural land with an industrial category. reports. [30] valuer and [31] Comparable 1 (Lot 2720) was transacted on 29.3.2021. It is categorised as industrial land with industrial condition. This court characteristics are not similar to the Scheduled Land. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, [32] Comparable 2 (PT 155311) was transacted on 31.1.2018. 3 (Lot 2569) was transacted on 16.10.2018. Both Comparable 2 and Comparable 3 are common comparables. These common comparable in the view of this court, are suitable subject to adjustments made. [33] The JPPH or the Two of these comparables, namely Comparable 3 (PT 155311) was transacted on 31.12.2018, and Comparable 4 (Lot 2569), was transacted on 16.10.2018. Comparable 3 and Comparable 4 are common comparables. [34] PT 2724), was transacted on 29.7.2020. Comparable 2 (PT 128702), was transacted on 13.8.2019. Comparable 1 and Comparable 2 are less suitable as there are two common comparables by both valuers. [35] of evidence of agricultural land (for agricultural use) to evaluate the land beneath the transmission line reserve (rentis). This court is of the view the value of the land is lower due to its limited usage potential. [36] In the view of this court, where there are common comparables, the common comparable should be used as a basis to determine the market value as the common comparable is the best comparable. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, Based on the common comparable PT 155311, adjustment were made based on the time factor (+10%), the shape (+20%), the size (-5%) and accessibility (-5%) resulting in a market value of RM780.00 per square metre. [37] For common comparable Lot 2569, adjustments were made to time factor (+10%), location (+10%), accessibility (-5%), size (-5%) and shape (+5%). This resulted in the market value of approximately RM860.00 per square metre. [38] The PTD had awarded the market value at RM830.00 per square metre. Using the common comparable as a basis with adjustments, this court came to the value of RM780.00 and RM860.00 per square metre. Therefore this court is of the view that the PTD s award of RM830.00 per square metre is not excessive and therefore should be maintained. Buildings and Structures [39] Valuer did not award compensation for this as the Scheduled Land is categorized as agricultural land and the use of the building on the Scheduled Land does not comply with the provisions of the National Land Code and involves legal violations. [40] Valuer submitted a claim amounting to RM8,276,000.00 for the building owned by the applicant, citing Article 13 of the S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, Federal Constitution in the valuation report. On the other hand, the any compensation for this Award did not provide compensation for this claim. [41] With regards to this heading of claims, this court made reference to the title document of the Scheduled Land, where the land use [42] Subsection 115(1)(a) of the National Land Code 1965 provides land of agricultural category cannot have buildings erected on it except for purposes provided under subsection 115(4) of the National Land Code 1965. Subsection 115(4) of the National Land Code 1965 allows the landowner to construct a residence for personal occupation or for workers employed for the agricultural land, subject to a maximum of one-fifth (1/5) of the total land area or two hectares, whichever is lesser. [43] Section 115 of the National Land Code 1965 allows some flexibility for construction on agricultural land, subject to purposes related to agriculture or with prior approval from the State Authority. Moreover, subsection 205(3) of the National Land Code, agricultural land of 2/5 hectare (approximately 1 acre) may only be transferred to one individual. In this case, the transfer of many lots is not provided for under any law. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, [44] Therefore, it is the view of this court that the number of buildings on the Scheduled Land does not comply with the requirements of Section 115 of the National Land Code 1965. Furthermore, the Scheduled Land has been valued as land with industrial potential, and hence the buildings on the Scheduled Land were excluded as this would result in double counting. [45] Therefore, this court did not allow the claim under this heading and the Award is upheld. Severance [46] Valuer proposed severance compensation amounting to RM1,200,408.00. compensation of RM308,013.00. The PTD awarded compensation for severance amounting to RM1,201,591.00. [47] The remaining land will be split into two after the land acquisition, resulting in some area to be unsuitable for development. In the considered view of this court, this will result in a drop in its value after the land acquisition. WCESB filed Borang N as the concession holder (the paying agency), and no objection was raised by the landowner. Therefore, this court is of the view that the s Award is reasonable and should be maintained. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, Incidental Costs and Land Development Costs [48] Valuer did not propose compensation for incidental costs. The valuer representing the Person Interested claimed compensation for relocation costs, real estate agent fees, temporary rental, business disturbance costs, and land development costs. [49] claim factor. [50] The Award granted compensation for land development costs for all parts involved in the acquisition, which included several sub-lots, with a total compensation amount of RM2,644,808. In the hearing notes (Enclosure 2), the Land Administrator provided justification for this compensation by taking into account the condition of the land that had already been developed and the issue of bona fide. [51] As all buildings and structures involved in the Scheduled Land are in contravention of the provisions of the National Land Code for land categorized as agricultural land, this court is of the considered view that no compensation should be awarded for relocation, temporary rental, real estate agent fees, and business disturbance costs. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, [52] Nonetheless, with regard to land development costs, this court finds that the affected areas have undergone development and improvements, and therefore this court is of the considered view the claim for land development costs ought to be allowed. This court Conclusion [53] Based 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 order for BA-15-153-12/2023:

the market value was maintained at Ringgit Malaysia

(ii) the other awards of the Land Administrator are maintained;

(iii) the deposit is returned to the WCESB; and

(iv) the WCESB is to pay the two assessors RM 500.00 each to be paid within 7 days from the date of the decision of this court. [54] For land references BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15- 36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39- 09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47- S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, 09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, BA-15-56-09/2023, BA-15-57-09/2023 this court made the following order:

The awards of the Land Administrator are maintained;

(ii) The deposit is to be returned to the Interested Persons; and

(iii) The Interested Persons are to pay the two assessor RM500.00 each to be paid within 7 days from the date of the decision of this court. Dated: 5 May 2025 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, Ho Ai Ting, Preveena a/p Ravindra Kumar Messrs Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill Advocates & Solicitors Level 6, Menara 1 Dutamas, 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, Solaris Dutamas, 50480 Kuala Lumpur 03-6208 5888 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. +603 5544 7183 Brenda Chan Qing Wen Messrs David & Paulian B-11-06, Gateway Corporate Suites, Gateway Kiaramas, No.1, Jalan Desa Kiara, Mont Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur +603 2935 9953 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw BA-15-34-08/2023, BA-15-35-08/2023, BA-15-36-08/2023, BA-15-37-09/2023, BA-15-38-09/2023, BA-15-39-09/2023, BA-15-45-09/2023, BA-15-46-09/2023, BA-15-47-09/2023, BA-15-48-09/2023, Thangadurai a/l Govindarajoo Messrs Govin T. Durai & Co. No. 12A, 1, Lorong Batu Nilam 21B, Bandar Bukit Tinggi 2, 41200 Klang, Selangor +603 3323 2747 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI SHAH ALAM RUJUKAN TANAH : BA-15-153-12/2023 PENGAMBILAN TANAH NO. LOT 10478, GERAN 20088 MUKIM KLANG, DAERAH KLANG, NEGERI SELANGOR BAGI PROJEK LEBUHRAYA PERSISIRAN PANTAI BARAT (TAIPING BANTING) PAKEJ 3 (DARI PERSIMPANGAN SAE PERSIMPANGAN NKVE/FHR2) MUKIM KLANG, DAERAH KLANG, NEGERI SELANGOR PENDAPAT PENGAPIT KERAJAAN

1.0

PENDAHULUAN 1 Hakim - Y.A Hakim Dr. Shahnaz binti Sulaiman 1.2 Pengapit - Sr Rosliza binti Ramli (Kerajaan) Sr Noor (Swasta)

1.3 Tujuan Pengambilan - Bagi Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping - Banting) Pakej 3 (dari Persimpangan SAE - Persimpangan NKVE/FHR2), Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor.

1.4 Tarikh warta - Seksyen 8 Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 1350 bertarikh 27 Mei 2021.

1.5 Tarikh nilaian - 27 Mei 2021 (tarikh warta Sek 8).

1.6 Pemohon - West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd (pemegang konsesi)

1.7 Responden - Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 1.8 Penilai Kerajaan - Pn Rosmaniza binti Othman (JPPH Klang)

1.9 Penilai Swasta - Sr Foo Gee Jen daripada Tetuan CBRE WTW Valuation & Advisory Sdn. Bhd. ANNEXURE A S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw

2.0 NILAIAN KERAJAAN, SWASTA DAN AWARD PAMPASAN PERKARA KERAJAAN (JPPH) (CBRE WTW S/B) TUAN TANAH/ BANGUNAN (SANDROPS) AWARD PENTADBIR TANAH A. Tanah Luas diwarta : 15,227.00 meter persegi (pengambilan sebahagian lot) (RM830.00 smp) RM10,049,820.00 (RM660.00 smp) Tiada dalam laporan yang dilantik (semasa perbicaraan tanah, diwakili oleh Tetuan Raine & Horne International) (RM830.00 smp) B. Bangunan dan struktur Tiada Tiada RM17,256,000.00 Tiada C. Pecah Pisah (Severance) ke atas tanah baki Luas tanah baki: Plot A: 21,532.00 meter persegi Plot B: 3,711.00 meter persegi Plot A: Tiada Plot B: RM308,013.00 (kejatuhan nilai tanah baki @ 10%) Plot A: RM710,556.00 (kejatuhan nilai tanah baki @ 5%) Plot B: RM489,852.00 (kejatuhan nilai tanah baki @ 20%) Jumlah: RM1,200,408.00 Tiada dalam laporan yang dilantik (semasa perbicaraan tanah, diwakili oleh Tetuan Raine & Horne International) Pecah pisah dan kecacatan tanah: RM1,201,591.00 (kejatuhan nilai tanah baki untuk Plot A adalah 5% dan Plot B adalah 10%) D. Kesan Mudarat (Injurious Affection) ke atas tanah baki Tiada Tiada Tiada Tiada E. Kos Sampingan dan Kerja Pemulihan Tiada Tiada RM32,626,566.24 Kos Pembangunan Tanah: RM2,644,808.00 Jumlah (keseluruhan) RM12,946,423.00 RM11,250,228.00 RM49,882,566.24 RM16,484,809.00 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw

3.0 KETERANGAN LOT TERLIBAT a. Tujuan Pengambilan : Projek Lebuhraya Persisiran Pantai Barat (Taiping - Banting) Pakej 3 (dari Persimpangan SAE - Persimpangan NKVE/FHR2), Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor. b. No. Hakmilik : Lot 10478, Geran 20088, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor. c. Pegangan : Selama-lamanya. d. Kategori : Pertanian. e. Syarat Nyata : All obligation reserved or implied under Lease No. 140 or the Land Code 1981, In regard to the cultivation of the land comprised therein have been fulfilled and further the condition implied by virtue of Section 48 od the above mentioned Land Enactment, 1897 has been fulfilled and no further liablity attaches to the land above described in respect thereof. f. Tuan Tanah Berdaftar : Ng Soon Eeng, Ng Yeow Chee dan Tan Teck Sim, sebagai Pemegang Amanah 1 1/1 bahagian g. Tarikh Nilaian : 27 Mei 2021. h. Keluasan Lot Asal :

4.047 hektar (40,470.00 meter persegi) sebagaimana dalam hakmilik. i. Keluasan Diambil :

1.5227 hektar (15,227.00 meter persegi) pengambilan sebahagian lot. j. Keluasan tanah baki selepas pengambilan : 25,243.00 meter persegi. k. Perancangan : Perindustrian. l. Perihal Harta Tanah : Merupakan lapisan pertama jalan sekunder, akses jalan tar, berbentuk empat segi bujur dan rupabumi adalah rata. Terdapat lebih 20 buah bangunan di atas tapak di mana 12 bangunan terlibat dengan pengambilan ini.

4.0 BANTAHAN RESPONDEN A. Berdasarkan kepada Borang N, pemegang konsesi membantah tentang:

Jumlah pampasan. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw Alasan bantahan adalah: Amaun award bagi nilai tanah adalah tinggi dan tidak mengikut nilai pasaran. Nilai award bagi kos IA, kos pecah pisah dan kos-kos tambahan lain yang diberikan juga adalah tinggi. Pemohon juga telah diberi kebenaran oleh Mahkamah bertarikh 8 April 2024 untuk memasukkan pindaan Borang N bagi Alasan Bantahan Spesifik iaitu: -tuan tanah dan/atau orang-orang tambahan lain iaitu kos pembangunan tanah, wajar diketepikan kerana adalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang (illegal) dan/atau menyalahi atau tidak mematuhi prinsip-prinsip berhubung dengan penetapan pampasan sepertu diperuntukkan dalam Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 dan prinsip undang-

5.0 PENDAPAT PENGAPIT KERAJAAN A. Nilai Pasaran Tanah Penilai Pemohon mengemukakan 3 bukti perbandingan dan Penilai Responden mengemukakan 4 bukti perbandingan. Terdapat 2 bukti perbandingan sepunya yang digunakan oleh kedua-dua penilai. Kedua-dua penilai bersetuju lot terlibat merupakan tanah kategori pertanian dengan kategori industri (sila rujuk laporan penilai pemohon dan responden). Komen ke atas bukti perbandingan yang digunakan oleh Penilai Pemohon adalah daripada kesemua perbandingan yang digunakan oleh Penilai Pemohon, saya berpendapat 2 bukti perbandingan yang sesuai digunakan dan 1 lagi tidak sesuai digunakan atas sebab berikut:- i) Perbandingan 1 (Lot 2720) yang dipindahmilik pada 29.3.2021 yang merupakan pindahmilik yang terletak di off Jalan Raja Nong/Sungai Jati. Bukti perbandingan ini kurang sesuai kerana merupakan tanah kategori Perindustrian dengan syarat Industri. Telah terdapat bukti perbandingan lain yang mempunyai ciri-ciri yang sebanding dan lebih sesuai dijadikan perbandingan dalam menilai lot terlibat. Oleh itu, ianya wajar ditolak. ii) Perbandingan 2 (PT 155311) yang dipindahmilik pada 31.1.2018 dan Perbandingan 3 (Lot 2569) yang dipindahmilik pada 16.10.2018 adalah merupakan perbandingan sepunya. Perbandingan ini sesuai digunakan dan pelarasan semula akan diberikan berdasarkan hujahan kedua-dua penilai. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw Komen ke atas bukti perbandingan yang digunakan oleh Penilai Responden: Daripada 4 bukti perbandingan yang digunakan oleh Penilai Responden, saya berpendapat hanya 2 perbandingan yang sesuai digunakan manakala 2 perbandingan lain tidak sesuai digunakan atas sebab berikut: i) Perbandingan 1 (PT 2724) yang dipindahmilik pada 29.7.2020 yang merupakan pindahmilik yang terletak di Jalan Abdul Karim dan Perbandingan 2 (PT 128702) yang dipindahmilik pada 13.8.2019 dan terletak di Jalan Kebun Nenas. Bukti perbandingan ini kurang sesuai kerana telah terdapat 2 bukti perbandingan sepunya yang digunakan oleh kedua-dua penilai. Oleh itu, ianya wajar ditolak. iii) Perbandingan 3 (PT 155311) yang dipindahmilik pada 31.12.2018 dan Perbandingan 4 (Lot 2569) yang dipindahmilik pada 16.10.2018 adalah merupakan perbandingan sepunya. Perbandingan ini sesuai digunakan dan pelarasan semula akan diberikan berdasarkan hujahan kedua-dua penilai. Penilai Responden juga menggunakan 4 bukti perbandingan tanah pertanian (untuk kegunaan pertanian) bagi menilai tanah di bawah rentis. Pengapit Hakim bersetuju dengan hujahan Penilai Pemohon (Encl No. 21, muka surat 20) berkenaan nilaian tanah rentis yang masih boleh digunakan Walau bagaimanapun, kadar tanah di bawah rentis adalah masih lebih rendah daripada tanah di luar rentis kerana faktor kegunaan tanah tersebut yang terhad dan sekiranya pembangunan hendak dijalankan ke atas lot terlibat, ia memerlukan pertimbangan dalam pelan perancangan pembangunan. Kesimpulannya, 1 bukti perbandingan daripada Penilai Pemohon dan 2 bukti perbandingan daripada Penilai Responden hendaklah ditolak dan tidak menepati kehendak Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 di bawah Perenggan - mana tanah dijadualkan, penilai boleh menggunakan apa-apa penilaian yang sesuai pada nilai pasaran untuk mencapai nilai pasaran itu, dengan syarat perhatian hendaklah diberi kepada harga yang dibayar bagi penjualan yang terkini tanah yang mempunyai ciri-ciri yang serupa sebagaimana tanah yang dijadualkan itu terletak di dalam kawasan yang sama dengan tanah dijadualkan ditolak. Berdasarkan hujahan daripada kedua-dua Penilai, saya mencadangkan pelarasan nilaian semula bagi bukti perbandingan adalah seperti berikut: S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw Perbandingan 2 Penilai Pemohon dan Perbandingan 3 Penilai Responden iaitu PT 155311, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang Faktor Pelarasan Penilai Pemohon Penilai Responden Pendapat Pengapit Hakim Asas Nilaian RM645.66 smp RM645.66 smp RM645.66 smp Faktor masa (5.2021 vs 12.2018) -beza 2 tahun 5 bulan +15% +5% +10% Kadar terlaras RM743.00 smp RM677.95 smp RM710.23 smp Lokasi 0% 0% 0% Lapisan (pertama jalan sekunder vs pertama jalan utama) -10% -5% -5% Saiz Tanah (40,470 mp vs 12,362 mp) -10% -5% -5% Bentuk (4 segi bujur vs bentuk L) +5% +20% +20% -15% +10% +10% Kadar Nilaian terlaras RM632.00 smp RM745.74 smp RM781.25 smp Kadar Nilaian terlaras (katakan) RM632.00 smp RM745.00 smp RM780.00 smp Perbandingan 3 Penilai Pemohon dan Perbandingan 4 Penilai Responden iaitu Lot 2569, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang Faktor Pelarasan Penilai Pemohon Penilai Responden Pendapat Pengapit Hakim Asas Nilaian RM741.30 smp RM741.30 smp RM741.30 smp Faktor masa (5.2021 vs 10.2018) -beza 2 tahun 7 bulan +15% +5% +10% Kadar terlaras RM852.00 smp RM778.35 smp RM815.43 smp Lokasi 0% +10% +10% Lapisan (pertama jalan sekunder vs pertama jalan utama) -10% -5% -5% Saiz Tanah (40,470 mp vs 12,141 mp) -10% -5% -5% Bentuk (4 segi bujur vs bentuk 4 segi bujur nipis) 0% +10% +5% -20% +10% +5% Kadar Nilaian terlaras RM682.00 smp RM856.19 smp RM856.20 smp Kadar Nilaian terlaras (katakan) RM682.00 smp RM855.00 smp RM860.00 smp S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw Berdasarkan pelarasan di atas, kadar nilaian terlaras adalah antara RM780.00 hingga RM860.00 smp. Asas nilaian dan kadar pelarasan yang digunakan adalah berdasarkan hujahan bertulis daripada Penilai Pemohon dan Penilai Responden. Berdasarkan pelarasan semula yang dijalankan, didapati kadar nilaian yang diperolehi oleh pengapit adalah lebih tinggi daripada Award Pentadbir Tanah. Oleh itu, Pengapit Hakim berpendapat kadar nilaian yang berpatutan dan munasabah bagi lot terlibat iaitu tanah di luar rentis adalah RM860.00 smp. Oleh itu, kadar nilaian tanah lot terlibat adalah seperti berikut dengan mengambil kira terdapatnya rentis di atas lot terlibat: Luas tanah (40,470.00 mp) Luar rentis : 40,146.00 mp x RM860.00 smp = RM34,525,560.00 Bawah rentis : 324.00 mp x (70% @ RM860.00 smp) = RM196,048.00 Jumlah = RM34,720,608.00 Analisis kadar nilaian tanah @ RM857.93 smp (katakan) @ RM858.00 smp Kadar nilaian yang diperolehi oleh Pengapit Hakim adalah lebih tinggi daripada award Pentadbir Tanah. Rujukan tanah ini dipohon oleh pemegang konsesi (agensi pembayar) dan tiada bantahan yang dirujuk oleh tuan tanah. Oleh itu, Pengapit Hakim berpendapat award Pentadbir adalah munasabah dan dikekalkan. B. Tuntutan Bangunan dan Struktur Penilai Pemohon tidak memberikan pampasan untuk pampasan ini kerana lot terlibat merupakan tanah kategori Pertanian dan kegunaan bangunan yang terdapat di atas tapak tidak mengikut peruntukan Kanun Tanah Negara dan terdapat isu pelanggaran undang-undang. Penilai Pemohon mengemukakan tuntutan sebanyak RM8,276,000.00 ke atas bangunan yang dimiliki oleh pemohon dengan membangkitkan di dalam laporan nilaian (Encl. 6 dan Enc 7) berkenaan Perkara 13, Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Penilai Responden tidak mencadangkan pampasan untuk faktor ini. Award Pentadbir tidak memberikan pampasan untuk tuntutan ini. Pengapit Hakim merujuk kepada dokumen hakmilik lot terlibat di mana kategori peruntukan di bawah subseksyen 115(1)(a), Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw memperuntukkan tanah berimilik dengan kategori tanah pertanian tidak boleh didirikan bangunan kecuali bagi maksud yang diperuntukkan di bawah subseksyen 115 (4) Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 iaitu pemilik tanah dibolehkan membina rumah kediaman untuk diduduki olehnya atau orang yang diambil bekerja bagi tanah pertanian dengan syarat tidak melebihi satu perlima (1/5) dari keluasan keseluruhan tanah itu atau dua hektar, mengikut mana yang lebih kurang. Seksyen 115, Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 ini memberi kelonggaran pembinaan bangunan ke atas tanah kategori pertanian yang tertakluk kepada tujuan yang berkaitan dengan pertanian atau bangunan dengan mendapat kebenaran Pihak Berkuasa Negeri terlebih dahulu. Manakala di bawah peruntukan subseksyen 205(3) Kanun Tanah Negara memperuntukkan bahawa bagi kategori tanah pertanian, seluas 2/5 hektar (lebih kurang 1 ekar) hanya boleh dipindahmilik kepada seorang sahaja. Dalam hal ini, pindahmilik lot lidi dilihat tidak diperuntukkan di bawah mana-mana peruntukan undang-undang sedia ada. Oleh itu, dengan merujuk kepada keterangan harta tanah yang dinyatakan di dalam laporan penilaian yang menunjukkan bilangan binaan bangunan yang terdapat di atas tapak adalah tidak mematuhi peruntukan seksyen 115, Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Lot terlibat juga telah dinilai sebagai tanah potensi industri dan oleh itu semua bangunan di atas tapak tidak diambilkira kerana ia melibatkan pengiraan dua kali. Oleh itu, tiada pampasan untuk bangunan dan struktur yang terlibat dengan pengambilan dan award Pentadbir Tanah adalah dikekalkan. C. Pecah Pisah (Severance) Penilai Pemohon mencadangkan pampasan pecah pisah diberikan sebanyak RM1,200,408.00. Penilai Responden telah mencadangkan pampasan pecah pisah sebanyak RM308,013.00 iaitu kejatuhan 10% nilai tanah baki di bahagian B yang disebabkan oleh pengambilan. Award Pentadbir Tanah telah memberikan pampasan sebanyak RM1,201,591.00. Pengapit Hakim berpendapat, pampasan ini wajar diberikan memandangkan tanah baki akan mengalami kejatuhan nilai selepas pengambil kerana tanah akan terpisah dua dan ada bahagian yang tidak boleh dibangunkan. Berdasarkan kadar nilaian yang dilaras di atas dan sekiranya mengambil kira kadar kejatuhan nilai yang dicadangkan oleh pemohon iaitu kejatuhan nilai S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw tanah baki di bahagian A sebanyak 5% dan di bahagian B sebanyak 20% akan menyebabkan jumlah pampasan ini akan terdapat tambahan. Rujukan tanah ini dipohon oleh pemegang konsesi (agensi pembayar) dan tiada bantahan yang dirujuk oleh tuan tanah. Oleh itu, Pengapit Hakim berpendapat award Pentadbir adalah munasabah dan dikekalkan. D. Tuntutan Kos Sampingan dan Kos Pembangunan Tanah Penilai Pemohon tidak mencadangkan pampasan untuk kos sampingan. Penilai yang mewakili pemilik bangunan telah menuntut pampasan ke atas kos pindah, kos ejen harta tanah, sewa sementara, kos kacau ganggu perniagaan dan kos pembangunan tanah. Penilai Responden tidak mencadangkan pampasan untuk faktor tuntutan ini. Award Pentadbir Tanah telah memberikan pampasan untuk kos pembangunan tanah ke atas semua bahagian yang terlibat dengan pengambilan ini yang melibatkan beberapa sublot dengan jumlah pampasan sebanyak RM2,644,808. Pentadbir Tanah di dalam nota perbicaraan (Encl 2) telah memberikan justifikasi mengenai pampasan ini kerana mengambil kira keadaan tanah yang telah dibuat pembangunan dan isu bonafide. Pengapit Hakim berpendapat tiada pampasan yang perlu diberikan untuk kos pindah, sewa sementara, kos ejen harta tanah dan kacau ganggu perniagaan kerana kesemua bangunan dan struktur terlibat tidak mematuhi peruntukan di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara yang menyatakan mengenai tanah kategori Pertanian. Manakala bagi kos pembangunan tanah, Pengapit Hakim berpendapat ianya boleh dipertimbangkan kerana bahagian yang terlibat telah dibuat pembangunan dan pembaikan di mana walaupun faktor ini diberikan pertimbangan di bawah rupabumi namun didapati kesemua perbandingan yang digunakan adalah tanah kosong yang belum dibuat pembangunan dan dibandingkan dengan lot terlibat yang telah dibuat penaiktarafan tanah. Oleh itu, selaras dengan peruntukan Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, maka Pengapit Hakim berpendapat pampasan yang diawardkan oleh Pentadbir Tanah adalah munasabah. Oleh itu, Award Pentadbir adalah dikekalkan. S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw

6.0 PENDAPAT PENGAPIT HAKIM Oleh itu saya berpendapat pampasan yang berpatutan dan munasabah adalah seperti berikut: a) Pampasan tanah dan lain-lain adalah dikekalkan. b) Deposit dikembalikan dan terma-terma lain adalah seperti biasa. c) Yuran Pengapit dibayar oleh Pihak Pemohon. DISEDIAKAN, TANPA PRASANGKA OLEH: Tarikh : 7 Disember 2024 S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw ANNEXURE B S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw S/N wiClwsk5mE2vVMCobWpfrw