PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR v. NUSANTARA DAYA SDN BHD

[2021] 4 MLRA 466

PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR v. NUSANTARA DAYA SDN BHD
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, Mary Lim Thiam Suan FCJJ
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-24-08-2019(J)]
20 May 2021

JUDGMENT

Mary Lim Thiam Suan FCJ:

[1] This appeal brings to sharp focus, once again, the meaning, intent and ambit of s 49 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486), in particular the proviso to s 49(1), whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal and thence to this court, is barred by reason of the proviso. This issue was raised as a threshold issue at the Court of Appeal which went on to rule in the negative before deciding the appeal on its merits. This threshold issue forms the core issue in this appeal.

Facts

[2] The salient facts are gathered from the respective grounds of judgment of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

[3] According to the High Court, the respondent had invoked s 38(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486) after it found itself dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Administrator for the acquisition of its land known as Lot 46200 GRN 460222, Mukim Johor Bahru, Daerah Johor Bahru (scheduled land). The scheduled land measuring some 4,464 square metres in area was acquired for the purpose of "Pembinaan Loji Rawatan Air Kumbahan di Hulu Sungai Segget di Mukim Bandar Johor Bahru Daerah Johor Bahru untuk Jabatan Perdana Menteri di bawah perenggan 3(1)(a) Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960".

[4] The Land Administrator had awarded a sum of RM16,516,800.00 as compensation for the acquisition. The respondent claimed that the fair market value of the scheduled land was RM28,830,074.40, that is, a rate of RM6,458.35 per square metre. A private valuer's report was offered in support - see pp 84 to 121, record of appeal. The respondent had also claimed a loss of income of RM40,200.00 for loss of use of the scheduled land as a car park for 67 vehicles. In coming to his award, the Land Administrator had relied on the recommendations of the Government Valuer who had offered four comparable sales in his valuation of the scheduled land (see valuation report at pp 122 to 174, record of appeal). After making the necessary adjustments to account for differences between the scheduled land and the comparable sales, the Government Valuer had recommended a market value of RM3,700.00 per square metre. The Land Administrator rejected the respondent's claim for loss of income.

Sign up to view full cases Login