HALA KOTA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang

Case Significance

Illustrates a land-reference court increasing a compulsory-acquisition award on adjusted land value with assessors, while requiring strict, separately proved evidence for severance and injurious affection claims.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam gives the grounds in a land reference under section 38(5) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960), arising from the acquisition of part of the applicant's land for a treated-water pipeline serving a water-supply development scheme. Dissatisfied with the compensation assessed by the Land Administrator, the landowner referred the matter to the High Court, which sat with two assessors to determine the appropriate compensation.

A recurring theme in the valuation dispute was the adequacy of the applicant's valuation evidence. The court noted, by reference to paragraph 2(1) of the Third Schedule to the Act, that the applicant's valuer had not made the necessary adjustments to the comparables relied on, which bore on whether a prima facie case for a higher value had been established. On the land value itself, however, the court, with the assistance of its assessors, adjusted the rate upward, arriving at a market value of RM6,318,735 (RM285 per square metre) against the Land Administrator's figure of RM5,542,750 (RM250 per square metre), an increase in land compensation of RM775,985.

On the additional heads of claim, the court applied the principle that severance and injurious affection under the relevant paragraphs of the First Schedule must be claimed and proved separately. It accepted the basis of a claim founded on the loss of access to a highway, but rejected a claim for injurious affection premised on the visual or aesthetic impact of an above-ground pipe, because the applicant's valuer could not prove or verify, by construction plans or technical specifications, that the pipe would in fact be constructed above ground. The court accordingly disallowed the severance and injurious affection claims and did not consider the other claims warranted. The judgment illustrates both the increase of a compulsory-acquisition award on adjusted land value and the strict proof required for severance and injurious affection.