Subparagraph
(iii) Tidak ada pampasan terhadap pokok-pokok getah yang masih ada hasil pendapatan.” [4] The hearing of the land reference proceedings was conducted by the learned judge with the aid of two assessors. The appellant’s valuer’s report valued the acquired land at RM13,215,150.00 (RM450.00 per square meter). In comparison, the government valuer valued the acquired land at RM7,296,720.00. The learned judge also took into consideration the appellant’s valuer’s rebuttal report. Altogether, 12 comparables were used at the hearing, 7 by the appellant’s private valuer and 5 by the respondent’s valuer. After hearing parties on 6.3.2018, the High Court judge awarded an additional compensation of RM1,163,243.00 (RM277.00 per square meter) together with late payment charges at the rate of 8% from 13.10.2015. The appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court lodged the appeal before the Court of Appeal. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT [5] The learned judge considered the opinions of the assessors on the fair amount of compensation. The first assessor (a government valuation officer) opined a fair amount on the basis of RM300.00 per square meter, and (ii) the opinion of the second assessor (a private valuer) of RM290.00 per square meter. [6] The learned judge agreed with the assessors’ opinion that all the respondent’s 5 comparables ought to be rejected as they were not situated within the vicinity of the acquired land and did not possess similar Page 4 of 9 characteristics as the acquired land. The learned judge also found the appellant’s comparables nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 to be unsuitable as they were situated in an area which was already developed whereas the acquired land was in an undeveloped area. [7] The learned judge agreed with the assessors’ opinion that comparables nos. 4, 5 and 6 used by the private valuer were suitable. In his judgment, the learned judge found comparable no. 4 as the most suitable as it was situated within the vicinity of the acquired land and possessed characteristics which were similar to the acquired land. [8] The learned judge rejected the appellant’s claim of RM2,105,000.00 for injurious affection under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule of the LAA 1960 on the grounds that the appellant’s objection only related to the amount of compensation. The appellant’s claim for the costs for acquiring a new site, stamp duty, agent’s fees and legal fees was also rejected on the grounds that (i) the claims were not stated in the Form N, and (ii) the claims were not raised in the appellant’s submissions. SUBMISSION OF PARTIES [9] Learned counsel for the appellant advanced three main points. First, the learned judge erred in accepting the respondent’s defective affidavit in reply affirmed on 24.5.2017 because (i) it was not deposed by an appropriate officer familiar with the facts, and (ii) it contains arguments, submissions and points of law. Second, the respondent was deemed to have admitted RM450.00 per square meter as the appellant’s prayer for RM450.00 per Page 5 of 9 square meter was not challenged or contradicted and therefore should have been accepted (Ng Hee Thong v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 281). Third, the learned judge erred in law in having accepted comparable no. 4 as the most suitable, took into consideration the adjustment by the assessors and then made a further adjustment on his own accord. [10] In reply, learned Assistant Legal Adviser (ALA) for the respondent argued that the respondent’s affidavit in reply was filed within the prescribed timeline and was correctly admitted by the learned judge (Paras. 3, 5 and 6, Third Schedule LAA 1960). Second, ALA argued that the appeal was against the decision as to compensation. This fact is reflected in the Form N filed by the appellant which states that the objection related only to the amount of compensation. Further, the appellant’s valuer’s report contained only 4 comparables, of which lot 1449 was not included. Lot 1449 which was used by the learned judge and assessors was only inserted in the appellant’s rebuttal valuer’s report which was filed subsequently. Para. 2(1) of the Third Schedule of the LAA 1960 provides that the applicant’s valuer’s report alone must establish a prima facie case for the appellant applicant. The learned judge was correct in rejecting lot 1449 as it was not in the appellant’s valuer’s report. Third, ALA argued that the decision as to compensation is final and not appealable (ss 40D & 49(1), ALA 1960). DECISION [11] In our considered view, the appeal relates to the amount of compensation; as such, the appeal must be dismissed as the decision of the Page 6 of 9 High Court is final and s 49(1) expressly stipulates that there shall be no appeal therefrom. [12] Notwithstanding the above, we have also considered the points raised by the appellant and are of the view that there are no questions of law involved. The first point taken by the appellant on the inadmissibility of the respondent’s affidavit in reply; this relates to procedure and evidence. There is no merit in this argument as the affidavit in question was regular. There is also nothing in the written judgment to indicate that the learned judge took into consideration any extraneous or irrelevant matter. The second point is also without merit as the law requires the appellant applicant to establish a prima facie case on the basis of their valuer’s report (see para. 2(1), Third