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

Case Significance

Illustrates that acquisition compensation is assessed parcel by parcel on the valuation and assessor evidence, and the Land Administrator's award will be maintained where the landowner shows no basis for an increase and comparison lands differ materially.

This High Court decision, delivered in Bahasa Malaysia, is a land reference concerning the compensation payable on the compulsory acquisition of a separate parcel of agricultural land for a national rail project. Here the acquisition affected Lot 1142, GM 1428 in Mukim Bentong, District of Bentong, Pahang — permanent agricultural land of which an area of 0.4173 hectare was taken for the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). After an acquisition inquiry, the Land Administrator of Bentong awarded compensation of RM483,276.65; dissatisfied with the rate, the landowner lodged the statutory objection in Form N and referred the matter to the High Court for a determination of the proper compensation. The court reiterated that although the acquisition of land for public infrastructure is at times unavoidable, the proprietor's rights are not thereby set aside but are safeguarded by Article 13 of the Federal Constitution and by the procedures of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, and that on a reference the court evaluates the valuation reports of the respective valuers with the aid of the assessors' opinions. Examining the valuation reports and the photographs of the acquired land — which, unlike the comparison lands relied on, did not show durian cultivation — the court accepted the concurring views of the government and private assessors that no addition to the award was warranted. It also held that a compensation figure allowed on a different land reference did not oblige it to award the same rate for this parcel, as that would depart from the requirements of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The court accordingly maintained the compensation awarded by the Land Administrator. The judgment illustrates the fact-specific, valuation-driven nature of land-reference compensation, assessed parcel by parcel. The court's approach reflects that each acquisition is valued on its own facts — the size, category and features of the particular parcel and genuinely comparable sales — so that an award on a neighbouring reference is persuasive at most and never a fixed benchmark the court is bound to follow.