PRISTINE POWER SDN.BHD. v Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah

Case Significance

Confirms, following Spicon Products v Tenaga Nasional, that the paymaster who bears the compensation cost of a compulsory acquisition has a sufficient interest to intervene in land-reference proceedings and is not confined to the Land Administrator's defence.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application by a third party to intervene in land-reference proceedings arising from a compulsory acquisition, and the right of the party who ultimately bears the compensation to participate. The applicant in the land reference, Pristine Power Sdn Bhd, had brought proceedings against the Land Administrator of the District of Gombak concerning the compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. A proposed intervener, EKVE Sdn Bhd, the concessionaire for the East Klang Valley Expressway, sought to intervene and participate in the land reference. Under its concession agreement with the Government, EKVE had been granted the rights to occupy the land required for the expressway, and while the Government's share of the land cost was capped at RM360 million, any land cost exceeding that figure was to be borne by EKVE, so that it was the party effectively paying the compensation in dispute. The dispute concerned compensation for part of a lot, in respect of which the Land Administrator had awarded the applicant a substantial sum for a luxury residential house (a banglo mewah) said not to form part of the acquisition, together with demolition costs, on the footing of ensuring the safety and comfort of the occupants. The court considered the definition of interested parties under sections 3 and 43 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and the role of the Land Administrator, and whether the paymaster in whose favour the land was acquired was entitled to intervene. Relying on the Federal Court's decision in Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd, which established that it is no longer the law that only the Land Administrator may defend the paymaster's interests, the court held that EKVE had a sufficient interest to intervene and allowed the intervention with costs. The judgment is a useful statement that the party bearing the compensation cost may intervene in land-reference proceedings.