AURELIAN LAND SDN BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bentong

Case Significance

A land reference on the compulsory acquisition of subterranean land under sections 92A–92I of the National Land Code and the Land Acquisition Act 1960, increasing the compensation by RM95,241.35 for injurious affection to the remaining land under the First Schedule, grounded in the Article 13 guarantee of adequate compensation.

This High Court (Temerloh) decision concerns a land reference under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 in respect of the acquisition of subterranean (underground) land. The court began from the constitutional protection of property under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law and that no law shall provide for compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation. The Land Acquisition Act 1960 was enacted to protect and secure the right to property guaranteed under Article 13, and the court emphasised that developments in land law under the National Land Code 1965 must be taken into account in determining an acquisition under the Act, so that the acquisition regime keeps pace with amendments to the Code and no lacuna is left that would prejudice the constitutional guarantee.

The acquisition concerned underground land under sections 92A to 92I of the National Land Code and the Land Acquisition Act 1960, and the reference engaged the question of nominal compensation where there was no endorsement on the document of title in respect of the underground land, together with the injurious affection said to be caused to the landowner by the acquisition.

On the valuation, the court considered the valuation reports and the facts, and held that the acquisition of the underground land had caused injurious affection to the applicant's remaining land, falling within Item 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The Land Administrator of Bentong had awarded RM635,083.63, but the court, having examined the facts, held that the sum ought to be increased by a further RM95,241.35 as an addition to the award. In its final determination the court decided that the compensation given by the Land Administrator was to be adjusted accordingly. The judgment illustrates the assessment of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of subterranean land, the treatment of injurious affection to the remaining land, and the constitutional underpinning of adequate compensation under Article 13.