Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

ISSUES, (Section 37(1) (b) of LAA 1960 : any interested person may make…

- - - - S Kulaisingam v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors: Doctrine of salus populi suprema lex: interest of public are paramount and private interest may be subordinated to public interest
        
        S. 3 LAA 1960:Scope of powers given to SA to acquire private land
        
        For public purpose
        
        On behalf of person or corporation for any purpose which in the opinion of SA will be beneficial to economic development of Malaysia or any part thereof or for public or any class of public
        
        For purpose of mining, residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational or any combination
- - - - Notifies the public that the said land is under consideration by the State Authority to be acquired for the purposes stated.
      - Gives notice that an authorised person may enter into the land to conduct survey operations. (preliminary investigations by the State Authority).
      - Case: Hong Lee Trading & Construction S/B v Taut Ying Realty S/B [1991]
        Held: The notification u-s.4 of the LAA 1960 is intended to serve as a notice to the public at large that certain land in a particular locality in the state ‘is likely to be needed’ for any of the purposes mentioned in section 3.
    - - S.7 LAA 1960: the LA must prepare and submit to the SA a plan of the whole area of such lands and a list of such lands in Form C (Schedule of Lands Affected by Acquisition)
        
        S.8(1) LAA 1960: when the State Authority has decided that any of the lands in the plans submitted to it are needed for any of the purposes in s.3 LAA, it will declare this in Form D (Declaration of intended acquisition).
        
        Form D must be gazetted and is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for the purpose specified therein. (S.8(3) LAA 1960)
        
        Case: Honan Plantations S/B v Kerajaan N. Johor & Ors. [1998]
        The declaration in Form D is conclusive as to the purpose for which the scheduled lands are required which would mean that Parliament has decided that the State Authority is the best judge to determine what amounts to a purpose which is beneficial to economic development.
  - - - Held: It is not mandatory that Form B be issued or that Form be served. The notification in Form A is also not mandatory. Reasons: The significance of Form A are two: Firstly, to enable the State Authority to authorise persons to enter the land to do certain work. Secondly, it is the date upon which the market value of the land is ascertained according to the First Schedule. First Schedule also provides for ‘any other cases’.
      - The appellant's land in Labu was acquired by the State government of N.9. The Appellants complain that the acquisition was in violation of the law in that Forms A and B prescribed by the Act were never issued and that Forms D, E and F though issued were not served.
    - - COA in this case held that the issuance of Form A is mandatory and the failure of the State Authority to comply with this mandatory provision means that the land acquisition was not done in accordance with the law. COA refused to follow the majority decision in Ng Kim Moi’s case.
    - - In this case, land was acquired under s.3(1)(a) for the expansion of a landfill in Jeram, Kuala Selangor. In an application for judicial review to quash the decision to acquire the land, the applicant argued, inter-alia, that the failure to gazette Form A resulted in the land acquisition being void. Cited COA decision in Ee Chong Pang’s case.
      - Held: The case of Ee Chong Pang has been brought to the Federal Court (unreported decision) and the Federal Court has overruled the COA decision and held that even where Form A has not been gazetted, it does not affect the land acquisition proceedings.
- - - - Ng. Tiong Hong v Collector of land revenue Gombak: Market value means the compensation that must be determined by references to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser
    - - Nagappa Chettiar & Ors v Collector of Land Revenue: The safest guide to determine the fair market value is the evidence of sales of the same land or similar land in the neighbourhood.
      - Ko Rubber Plantations Pte Ltd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Batu Pahat
      - he previous sales of comparable or similar lots of land must be bona fide. The sale should have been a genuine sale and the price paid should be a realistic figure when all the circumstances of the current case and the current market value of property were taken into account
        
        Case: Che Pa Bin Hashim & Ors v The Collectors of Revenue, Kedah [1993] 1 CLJ 193- It was held that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence to show that the sale transaction of lot 756, the comparable lot, was a bona fide transaction.
    - - 1st Schedule of LAA, section 1 (2B) had stated that the potential development of the land in question is not to be taken into consideration However, there are certain cases that have considered potential development when determining the amount of compensation to be awarded.
        
        Chuah Say Hai & Ors v Collector of Land Revenue
        It was held that the land should be given a market value which reflected the use to which it was reasonable of being put in the future, but it should not be valued as though it had already been built upon.
        
        Siah Bros Plantation Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah Kuantan
        The court rejected the valuation because the potential development is too remote
        
        Kwang Hap Siang Ltd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak
        The court after having considered all the evidence held that valuation of the subject property should be on the basis of the best use to which the property could be put.
        
        However the potential development should not be too remote