KATRINA BINTI ABDULLAH @ LEE MOI TIN v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bentong

Case Significance

Illustrates that on a land reference the court determines adequacy of acquisition compensation from the valuation reports and assessors' opinions, and will maintain the Land Administrator's award where the objecting landowner shows no basis to increase it.

This High Court decision, delivered in Bahasa Malaysia, is a land reference determining the adequacy of the compensation awarded on a compulsory acquisition of land for a national rail infrastructure project. The land in question was permanent agricultural land — Lot 567, GM 2785 in Mukim Bentong, District of Bentong, Pahang — of which an area of 0.3288 hectare was acquired for the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). Following an acquisition inquiry, the Land Administrator of Bentong awarded compensation of RM380,572.40, with which the landowner was dissatisfied, filing the statutory objection (Form N) and referring the matter to the High Court for a determination of the proper rate. The court explained that a compulsory acquisition, though sometimes unavoidable for public infrastructure, does not extinguish the proprietor's rights, which are protected by Article 13 of the Federal Constitution and the procedures of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, and that on a land reference the court weighs the valuation reports of the parties' valuers with the assistance of the opinions of the assessors who sit with it. Considering the competing valuation reports, the photographs of the area — which did not show the durian cultivation found on the comparison lands relied on — and the concurring views of the government and private assessors, the court found no basis to increase the award. It also held that a compensation figure given in another land reference did not bind it to award the same rate for this land, since that would be inconsistent with the requirements of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960. Accordingly, the court maintained the compensation awarded by the Land Administrator. The judgment illustrates how the courts assess adequacy of acquisition compensation through valuation and assessor evidence. The court's approach reflects that adequacy of compensation is a question of fact turning on the character of the land and reliable comparables, and that an owner seeking to displace the Land Administrator's figure must ground the higher valuation in evidence the court accepts.