WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang PENCELAH 1. ) (Tidak Dibenarkan) Ng Tian Yew 2. ) (tidak dibenarkan) PEMBINAAN TUMPUAN CERGAS SDN BHD 3. ) NG TANN NA 4. ) PEMBINAAN TUMPUAN CERGAS SDN. BHD. 5. ) T. CHELVEE TRADING 6. ) TAN YOAK YAN 7. ) LIM BEE LIAN 8. ) LIM THIAN CHAI 9. ) LEE AH SENG 10. ) (Tidak Dibenarkan) Tan Chai Sin 11. ) TAN KOK SIN 12. ) LEE KEE CHONG 13. ) LAW BOON MENG 14. ) DEEPA NISHA A/P SUBRAMANIAM 15. ) NINETTE ANNE A/P SUBRAMANIAM 16. ) GOH SIEW C...

Case Significance

Illustrates how a Land Acquisition Act 1960 reference brought by the paying concessionaire is assessed head by head, upholding the Land Administrator’s award for developed land while refusing incidental costs for non-compliant structures.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam determines a set of consolidated land references under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, arising from the compulsory acquisition of land for an expressway project. Unusually, the reference was brought not by the dispossessed landowners but by the concessionaire and paymaster for the scheme, West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd, which filed the statutory Form N to challenge the Land Administrator’s award of compensation — disputing the assessment of market value, of buildings and structures, of severance, and of incidental and land-development costs. Sitting with assessors, the Court reviewed each contested head of compensation. On market value and the proposed reduction in the value of the retained land, the Court found the Land Administrator’s award reasonable and maintained it, noting that the reference had been initiated by the paying concessionaire and that the affected landowners had raised no objection. On incidental costs — such as removal expenses, temporary rent, real-estate agents’ fees and business disturbance — the Court declined to allow compensation, because the buildings and structures concerned did not comply with the National Land Code provisions applicable to land held under the agricultural category. On land-development cost, however, the Court considered an award justified, because the affected portions had in fact been developed and improved, whereas the comparables relied upon were undeveloped vacant land, so the Land Administrator’s award for that head, running to over two and a half million ringgit, was reasonable and maintained, the improved state of the acquired portions distinguishing them from the vacant comparables. The Court also noted the concessionaire’s own contention that the retained land would fall in value — by a modest percentage in one part and a larger percentage in another — but did not treat that as a reason to disturb the award. In the result the compensation determined by the Land Administrator was upheld, the deposit was returned on the usual terms, and the assessors’ fees were ordered to be borne by the applicant concessionaire. The judgment illustrates how a land-acquisition reference brought by the paying authority is assessed head by head against the statutory criteria.