MOHAMAD ZAINI BIN SALLEH v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bentong

Case Significance

Illustrates how compensation is assessed on a land reference for subterranean acquisition for a rail tunnel, and the requirement that a claim for injurious affection be supported by evidence of the detriment relied on.

This High Court decision at Temerloh concerns a land reference under the Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (the Land Acquisition Act 1960) arising from the acquisition of land for the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, heard together with a companion reference by another landowner against the same Land Administrator. The judgment opens by acknowledging that land is a valuable possession that an owner is reluctant to give up, but that the State may acquire it for purposes permitted by law, consistent with the protection of property rights recognised under Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Article 13 of the Federal Constitution), provided the acquisition is carried out in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960. Witnesses were examined at the hearing of the reference on the quantum of compensation.

The applicant's claim had two limbs: compensation for the subterranean land taken for the railway tunnel, and compensation for injurious affection — that the ECRL tunnel would impede the applicant's future enjoyment of the surface land, in part because of the restrictions imposed by the Peraturan-Peraturan Keretapi (Zon Perlindungan Keretapi) 1998 (the Railways (Railway Protection Zone) Regulations 1998). The Land Administrator had awarded only nominal compensation of RM1,000 for the underground land.

The Court held that the nominal award of RM1,000 for the subterranean land was appropriate on the facts and maintained it. On the claim for injurious affection, the Court found that the essential foundation of the claim — that the tunnel would prevent the applicant from enjoying the land as before — had not been established: up to the hearing, no information had been produced from the ECRL project or the relevant authority to demonstrate the alleged detriment, so the Court could not be shown that any injurious affection would in fact be suffered. The claim for injurious affection was accordingly rejected for want of proof. The judgment is a useful illustration of how compensation is assessed on a land reference for subterranean acquisition for a rail tunnel, and of the requirement that a claim for injurious affection be supported by evidence of the detriment relied on.