LAW CASE STUDY Case Profile: Land Acquisition for the purpose of :Flyover Construction Project of KESAS Highway

within the Kota Kemuning Park and Bukit Rimau Park Location :- Section 35 Shah Alam Lot :- Lot 133 (New Lot 72111 & 72112), Klang Mukim, Klang District, Selangor. Case Held at :- Shah Alam High Court. Declaration :Selangor State Declaration No 1465, date 14th August 2003. Purposes of Valuation & Land Acquired Matters arisen: This case was bring into the High Court Shah Alam when there is huge different between the valuation of private valuer and government valuer. Government valuer has come out with the conclusive evidence that show the comparable properties that been taken by the private valuers is irrelevant and cant not be used as comparable properties for Lot 133. No Lot Land Area 10.1045 hectare Acquired Land 4.09 hectare

Lot 133 (New Lot 72111 & 72112)

The land area that been stated above is the land area that been mentioned in Gazette. However based on the previous land acquisition that involve the Construction of KESAS Highway, the land area is based on the latest land title which is :-

Bil i) ii)

Lot No Lot 72111 Lot 72112

Land Area 1.567 hectare 4.397 hectare

Acquired Land 1.168 hectare 2.922 hectare

GOVERNMENT VALUATION Lot 72111 Acquired Land 1.168 hectare Price per hectare Total of Compensation RM700,000.00 (RM RM 817,600.00 6.50 psf) RM138,040.00

iii) iv)

Land Injurious Affection remaining land.

Lot 72112 Acquired Land 2.922 hectare Price per hectare Total of Compensation RM700,000.00 (RM RM2,045,400.00 6.50 psf) RM 3,001,040.00

i)

Land

Total Overall Compensation :

Land Owner Rectify Value (psf) RM 25.00 Say RM 3,142,854.00 Total RM 3,142,854.00

i)

ii)

Land 2.886 acre 125,714.16 psf Remaining RM 17.50 Land 70 % from MV 0.986 acre 42.950.16 psf 3,990.17 psf

RM751,627.80

RM751,627.00

iii) Valuers Fee Total Analysis for Private Valuer Valuations

RM 10,088.00 RM 3,904,569.00

1. Based on all the data of comparable properties that private valuer used, all the comparable are not suitable in order to determine the value of schedule land because the characteristic is totally different. Applicants Valuer disobeyed the Principles relating to determination of compensation as mentioned in First Scheduled, Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486) According to Paragraph 1A, In assessing the market value of any scheduled land, the valuer may use any suitable method of valuation to arrive at the market value provided that

regard may be had to the prices paid for the recent sales of lands with similar characteristics as the scheduled land which are situated within the vicinity of the scheduled land and with particular consideration being given to the last transaction on the scheduled within two years from the date with reference to which the scheduled land is to be assessed.

2. The scheduled land is agriculture land, and based on the normal principle in valuation field the comparable properties that can be used is similar with the subject property (scheduled land). Therefore, is the scheduled land is agriculture, we only consider comparable of agriculture land. 3. The applicant valuers has used a different category of land use as comparable which is industry and commercial while the subject lot is agriculture land. Both of categories of land use are far better compared to the schedule land. The comparable properties only can be use of there is no other comparable properties that similar with the scheduled land within the same locality. But based the reference that been made, there are a lots of comparable property that have same characteristic with the scheduled land. 4. Therefore, the comparable properties that being used by the private valuer is not suitable and cannot accepted as similar property. Plus, the value that been proposed for schedule land is far more high compared to the adequate comparable value that should be used. The value of land for industrial and commercial is away better compared to agriculture land. The value that been imposed towards the scheduled land is not reasonable and doesnt show the real market value. According to the Ng Tiou Hong vs Collector Of Land Revenue Gombak Case Yang Arif Hakim Syed Agil Barakbah stated that the market prices can be measured by consideration of prices of sales of similar land in the neighbourhood or locality and of similar quality and positions.

Below is the comparable properties used by PRIVATE VALUER :-

-at another document (landscape) rina pls delete this after u read it

As been stated in the Land Acquisition Act 1960, under First Scheduled (1A) :a. All comparable taken should have the similar characteristic with the scheduled land. b. The huge different of characteristic of land between the comparable and scheduled land with directly affect the valuation and the value of scheduled land. c. Big mistake if someone took a totally different category of land with the scheduled land, because in this case the scheduled land is a agricultural land. Contradict with the comparable property which is industrial & commercial land. d. For item (d) we can Only take the different category of land if there is no other land in the same locality that have the same characteristic with the scheduled land. According to Section 2 of Land Acquisition Act 1960 stated that :a. In order to determining the amount of compensation to awarded we need to consider about : Section 2 (a) Market value as determined in First Scheduled. b. Therefore in this case the valuer has disobeyed the instruction of the act by choosing the wrong comparable properties. Even though the value taken in comparable properties is market value, but we cannot use it. c. At first the principles of choosing the comparable properties have been neglect by the valuer. d. The Section 1 and Section 2 in the First Scheduled is strongly related. If you neglect the Section 1 in this act, you automatically cannot proceed to the Section 2. e. In this case there is injurious affection incurred in the scheduled land. The total land acquired has been stated in the previous table.

The problems arise in this case when the registered proprietor claim amount of compensation that are unreasonable and the government find out some issues regarding the determining the value of compensation. Due to the different prices between the agricultural (scheduled land) and industrial, commercial (comparable properties) the amount of compensation is not a genuine value. As mentioned earlier, value agricultural is much more lower compared to other category of land use.

ALL FACTS ABOVE IS FROM THE GOVERNMENTS VALUER PERSPECTIVE. THE REGISTERED PROPRIETOR SEND AN OBJECTION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF AWARD.

By sending the objection letter thru Borang N , the owner of the scheduled land Tan Siew Lai stated a few reasons to strengthen the objection which is :a) The valuation made by Kumpulan Jurunilai Sdn Bhd is RM25.00 per sqm for Lot 72111 and RM 39.50 psf for Lot 72112. b) The land is a potential land (Mix Development) c) The surrounding area has been developed for residential and industrial area which is Kota Kemuning, Bukit Rimau and Kemunting Utama. d) The land located at strategic place : entrance of Shah Alam. e) MBSA has putted the signboard before the GAZETTE. We can consider this as trespass. f) Lot 72111 is zoning for residential by MBSA since 2000. g) Lot 72112 is zoning for commercial area since 2000 by MBSA. h) Even thou the Gazette on August 2003, but the land already took , encroachment and all the works has started since 2002. i) One joint venture between the land owner and third party has been canceled due to the acquisition and the land owner has incurred the lost. j) According to The Star on the 08.09.2000, the local authority already authorized the interchange project in land since 1994. k) And etc.

The owner claimed that the award given is minimum and can be classified as vicious, injustice, and unreasonable. The award is too low and failed to fulfill the court proceeding and law accordingly.