CHONG CHEN NAM v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bentong

Case Significance

Illustrates the discrete treatment of severance and injurious affection in an ECRL land reference under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 — awarding severance compensation while refusing injurious affection — and clarifies the assistive, non-binding role of assessors whose opinions aid the judge's final decision.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Temerloh concerns a land reference under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 arising from the compulsory acquisition of part of a lot in the Bentong district of Pahang for Phase 1 of the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project. The acquisition took an area of about 0.8478 hectare out of a total holding of roughly 2.4730 hectares, and the applicant was the sole registered proprietor of the land. At the conclusion of the Land Administrator's inquiry, the award and additional compensation determined under Form H came to RM1,475,337.00; dissatisfied with the amount, the applicant referred the matter to the High Court by Form N, objecting to the compensation. Both sides tendered valuation reports — the applicant's from a registered valuer in private practice and the respondent's from the Valuation and Property Services Department.

Sitting with the assistance of assessors, whose written opinions form part of the record of the land reference, the court addressed the disputed heads of compensation, in particular severance (pecah pisah) and injurious affection (kesan kemudaratan). On severance — the reduction in value of the retained land occasioned by the splitting off of the acquired portion — the court awarded compensation of RM82,072.60. On injurious affection, it found no basis to award any compensation. The remaining orders of the Land Administrator were maintained. The court also took the opportunity to explain the proper role of the assessors: their written opinions are provided to give the parties sight of the assessors' views and to assist the judge, who makes the final decision in the reference, and a difference of opinion between assessors is not a ground for the parties to impugn the assessors' standing or the soundness of their opinions. The judgment illustrates the discrete treatment of severance and injurious affection in an ECRL land reference and the assistive function of assessors.