JUDGMENT
Mary Lim Thiam Suan FCJ:
[1] Although eight issues were identified for determination by this court, we allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to the High Court for a re-hearing after finding on the single issue of non-compliance of s 40C of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 [Act 486]. We found the non-compliance to be serious warranting us to intervene under the principles of appellate intervention.
Relevant Factual Background
[2] On 11 December 1987, the appellant entered into a joint-venture agreement with Perbadanan Setiausaha Kerajaan Selangor [PSKS] to develop several lots of land located at s 15, Daerah Hulu Langat in the State of Selangor. PSKS, as registered proprietor received the entire consideration under that joint-venture agreement and relinquished its rights to the appellant in respect of those lands.
[3] Some of the land involved in that development was subdivided into Lots 35126, 35127 and 35129. These subdivided lots were initially acquired by the State Government on 23 July 2015 for the purpose of "Projek Lebuhraya Bertingkat Sungai Besi - Ulu Kelang (SUKE), Daerah Ulu Langat, Selangor". Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia [LLM], the 2nd respondent was the paymaster for this acquisition. On 9 December 2016, the declaration of acquisition was amended to involve only Lots 35126 and 35127.
[4] Arguments later arose over the assessment of compensation for the acquisition, including the date of valuation, whether it should be by reference to the first date of acquisition in 2015 or the later date in 2016; and whether development costs are compensable. If so, by reference to which of those two dates of acquisition.
[5] At the enquiry held on 16 May 2017, the 1st respondent, the Land Administrator found that it was difficult to divide or separate the development costs based on each lot. On the suggestion of the appellant, the Land Administrator considered these costs as part of the claim for compensation for Lot 35129 whereas the compensation for the remaining two lots would cover only claims for land value and injurious affection. Apparently, LLM's representatives did not object to that suggestion.