ALIYA NABILA BINTI AYUB v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Selangor

Case Significance

Shows a land-reference court exercising its own valuation function with assessors to increase a compulsory-acquisition award toward comparable lots, while declining to adopt the objector's ceiling valuation absent full supporting evidence.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam sets out the grounds of judgment (alasan penghakiman) in a land reference under section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960), again arising from acquisition for the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, this time in the Kuala Selangor district. The subject lot was a parcel held under a title with an approved building plan for a two-storey bungalow. Dissatisfied with the Land Administrator's award, the registered proprietor referred the matter to the High Court, which sat with two assessors to determine the appropriate compensation.

The proprietor's objection, recorded in the statutory Form N (Borang N), was that the Land Administrator had disregarded the principle of parity or uniformity of valuation (prinsip kesamarataan), because other bungalow lots affected by the same acquisition at the Ambang Suria scheme had been compensated at land values in the region of RM650 to RM658 per square metre, whereas the subject scheduled land had been assessed at a markedly lower figure. The Government Valuer (Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta) had proposed RM540 per square metre while the proprietor's private valuer contended for RM1,080 per square metre.

Weighing the comparables and the competing valuation evidence with the assistance of its assessors, the court found the Land Administrator's figure to be insufficient and adjusted the land value upward to RM600 per square metre. In doing so the court observed that the Land Administrator had exercised judgment and discretion at the time of the enquiry on the justification then available, and that it had not been supplied with all the documents needed to accept the private valuer's higher parity figures in full. The judgment illustrates how a land-reference court, exercising its own valuation function with assessors, may increase an acquisition award where the objector demonstrates a shortfall against comparable lots, while still declining to adopt the objector's ceiling figure.