BLUE VALLEY PLANTATION BHD. 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH CAMERON HIGHLANDS 2. ) PYLON RANGE SDN. BHD.

BLUE VALLEY PLANTATION BHD. 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH CAMERON HIGHLANDS 2. ) PYLON RANGE SDN. BHD.

Appeal dismissed because the Judicial Commissioner correctly treated the land as zoned infrastructure and utilities per the State Director's conclusive s9A(5) return; the appellant failed to produce a prima facie valuation based on appropriate comparables for that zoning; the complaints amounted to factual valuation disputes (quantum) not questions of law and therefore were not proper grounds for appellate intervention under the proviso to s49(1) and s40D(3) LAA.

Citation
C-01(A)-301-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Blue Valley Plantation Berhad; 1st Respondent: Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Cameron Highland; 2nd Respondent: Pylon Range Sdn Bhd
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 September 2022
Case Number
C-01(A)-301-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Land Acquisition Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Compensation, Appealability, Valuation Comparables, Assessors' Role, Statutory Land Use Determination
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Acquisition Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Valuation Law Compensation Appealability Valuation Comparables +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Valley Plantation Berhad

Appellant

Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Cameron Highland

1st Respondent

Pylon Range Sdn Bhd

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Acquisition Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judicial Commissioner failed to consider statutory development plan land use under s9A(5) of the LAA
  2. 2 Whether the Judicial Commissioner failed to consider comparable sales of infrastructure and utilities land as required by valuation rules
  3. 3 Whether the Judicial Commissioner failed to state the basis of his valuation decision

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the Judicial Commissioner correctly treated the land as zoned infrastructure and utilities per the State Director's conclusive s9A(5) return; the appellant failed to produce a prima facie valuation based on appropriate comparables for that zoning; the complaints amounted to factual valuation disputes (quantum) not questions of law and therefore were not proper grounds for appellate intervention under the proviso to s49(1) and s40D(3) LAA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.