RUSMAINI BINTI ABDUL TALIB v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

Case Significance

Reinforces, in a companion Kampung Baru land reference, that a head of compensation must be established as actual, quantified loss: an unmaterialised claim for 'land replacement costs', admitted to be mere estimates with no evidence of actual expenditure, will not be allowed, and the Land Administrator's award is maintained.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, delivered by Judge Aliza Sulaiman in a land reference, is a companion matter to a related reference and concerns the adequacy of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of a Kampung Baru property and a claim for land replacement costs. The applicant was the registered owner of a leasehold lot with a terrace house in Kampung Bharu, Kuala Lumpur, held under a 99-year lease with a substantial unexpired term. After the compulsory acquisition, the Land Administrator made an award of compensation for the land and building, and the applicant, being dissatisfied, referred the matter to the High Court. As in the related reference, a principal component of the applicant's claim was an amount described as land replacement costs, representing the anticipated cost of replacing the acquired property.

The court declined to interfere with the Land Administrator's award. It found, on the same reasoning as in the parallel reference, that the applicant acknowledged the land replacement costs had not materialised and were merely estimates, so that there was no evidence of the actual costs incurred, and there was accordingly no valid basis for the court to allow those costs as claimed. Assessing the comparables and valuation material, the court was satisfied that there were no valid reasons to disturb the award made by the Land Administrator for the land and building. It therefore maintained the award and ordered the return of the deposit to the applicant. As in the parallel reference it decided at the same time, the court treated the burden of proving each disputed head of compensation as resting on the claimant, and held that an owner who advances only projected figures, unsupported by evidence of expenditure actually incurred, has not discharged that burden. The judgment reinforces, in a parallel factual setting, that a head of compensation in a land reference must be established as actual, quantified loss, and that an unproven and unmaterialised claim for replacement cost cannot displace a properly assessed acquisition award.