SISTEM LINGKARAN LEBUHRAYA KAJANG Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A highway concession company litigating land surrender, compulsory acquisition and adequate compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and the National Land Code across the appellate hierarchy.

Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Kajang Sdn Bhd, a highway concession company, appears in the corpus in land-acquisition and compensation proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and the National Land Code, some reaching the apex court.

One matter, at apex level, concerned the acquisition of land, compensation, and the surrender of land. The court examined whether the State Authority had failed to comply with Part Twelve of the National Land Code, whether any such non-compliance rendered the surrender of a surrendered area invalid for the purpose of assessing compensation, and whether a complaint about the formalisation of a surrender was a question of law or of fact. It also considered whether there was a right of appeal against the High Court's decision in light of sections 37(2), 40D and 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and section 68(1)(d) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, and whether effective surrender in accordance with the National Land Code was a relevant consideration in determining adequate compensation.

A related matter, a land reference in the High Court, followed from the apex determination. The court's framing recorded that the apex court had decided the land in question had not been surrendered, so the matter was remitted to the High Court to determine the amount of compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The question was whether compensation should proceed on the basis that the land had not been surrendered or that it was intended to be surrendered.

These proceedings show a concession company litigating the intersection of land surrender, compulsory acquisition and adequate compensation across the appellate hierarchy. The narrative reports the statutory provisions and the questions the courts identified, and states outcomes only as recorded, without commenting on the quantum ultimately fixed. The movement of the dispute between the apex court and the High Court reference underscores that the surrender question and the quantum of compensation were treated as distinct stages within a single acquisition controversy.