Menteri Besar Selangor (Pemerbadanan) v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak PENCELAH MALAYSIA RAIL LINK SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the assessment of statutory compensation on a partial land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 — the distinction between severance and injurious affection, and the requirement that a claim for injurious affection be supported by evidence of the diminution in value of the remaining land.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns a land reference under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, heard together with a related reference. The applicant was the registered proprietor of scheduled land at Mukim Rawang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor — a large parcel held under a 99-year lease and zoned for agricultural use. Part of the land, measuring some 9,001 square metres, was acquired by the State for the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, which split the remaining land into two parts. Dissatisfied with the Land Administrator's award, the applicant objected to the adequacy of the compensation for land value, severance, injurious affection and incidental costs, and referred the matter to the court, which heard it with the assistance of a government assessor and a private assessor.

Having examined the instruments, the parties' submissions and the assessors' reports, the court allowed part of the objection on land value, increasing the value from RM95.00 to RM105.00 per square metre. In consequence it directed the respondent to pay additional compensation comprising RM90,010.00 for land value and RM315,459.90 for severance (pecah pisah), together with a late-payment charge at 5% per annum from the date of Form K until full settlement.

On the claim for injurious affection (kesan mudarat), the court distinguished it from severance and examined the competing valuations — the private assessor recommending an award for the diminished value of the remaining land due to noise pollution and changes to access and ecosystem, and the government assessor's view that, the land remaining agricultural and no development being proposed, no diminution in value had been shown. The court found that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence of the alleged disturbance to support the claim, and declined to award additional compensation for injurious affection or incidental costs. The judgment illustrates the assessment of statutory compensation, and the evidential burden for injurious affection, on a partial acquisition.