Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 6 of 2020

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 6 of 2020
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 6 of 2020

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 14 January, 2021 | 0

    How is the land administrator supposed to assess the quantum of compensation to a land owner in a compulsory acquisition?

    Case:

    NUSANTARA DAYA SDN BHD V PENTADBIR TANAH JOHOR BAHRU [2020] 1 LNS 95

    Brief Facts:

    • Nusantara Daya Sdn Bhd was the owner of a piece of land measuring 4,464 square metre in area (“Owner”) which was acquired by the State Authority.

     

    • The Land Administrator (“LA”) awarded the Owner compensation in the sum of RM16,516,800-00 at the rate of RM3,700-00 per square metre.

     

    • Dissatisfied with the LA’s award, the Owner filed an application requiring the LA to refer the matter to the High Court.

     

    • The High Court, assisted by assessors, ordered that the compensation be adjusted from RM16,516,800-00 to RM19,026,907-00 as the fair market value to be compensated to the Owner for the acquired land, after a ten per cent (10%) deduction to the market value due to the size of the land would have attracted lesser potential buyers.

     

    • The Owner, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    COURT OF APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL ALLOWED!

    • The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge had erred in its findings as there was simply no evidence to support its finding that the size of the scheduled land would have attracted lesser potential buyers.

     

    • The correct approach was to consider market value of the land from the perspective that there would be a hypothetical person actively seeking land to fulfil needs which the scheduled land could fulfil.

     

    • As such, the High Court judge’s conclusion is without evidential basis.

     

    • The Court of Appeal then set aside the 10% deduction for the size of the land.

     

    • The Court deducted 10% for factors like location, access and layer and awarded 25% for potentialities for development.
    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil