Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compensation valuation

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2026

1. ) LOYAL SYNERGY SDN BHD 2. ) loyal synerg sdn bhd Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Timur Laut

Citation

P-01(A)-372-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

P-01(A)-372-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal was allowed because the High Court relied substantially on assessors' written opinions that were not made available to the parties prior to judgment, constituting non-compliance with section 40C and a breach of procedural fairness as required by article 13 and Tegas Sejati; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing.
31 Dec 2025

Azhar Bin Sulaiman Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kota Setar

Citation

KA-15-39-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-15-39-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the appropriate valuation method for the subject building was the cost method calibrated by local comparable building costs and official valuation data; the applicant's high reconstruction cost claims based on contractor quotations and asserted heritage premium were rejected for lack of statutory heritage listing and insufficient qualified expert evidence. The respondent's 50% depreciation was excessive given the building's good condition; a 10% depreciation was appropriate. Court awarded RM292,656.24 for the building and ordered additional payments and ancillary directions accordi…
30 Apr 2025

CHONG CHEN NAM Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bentong

Citation

CB-15-17-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-15-17-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court upheld the Land Administrator's valuation for the land as reasonable; found severance between lot 5615 and lot 5609 proven and awarded 5% severance compensation of RM82,072.60; rejected claim for injurious affection for lack of sufficient evidence; exercise of judicial discretion informed but not bound by assessors' opinions in accordance with statute and precedent.
7 Sept 2023

Nabisah Binti Abdul Hamid (PM 6413) Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Langat

Citation

BA-15-229-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-229-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the respondent's market value award was inadequate and, relying on the best comparable (Lot 11745) with appropriate adjustments, increased market value to RM190.00 per square metre under section 2(a) First Schedule LAA; court rejected additional claims for plantation development costs, loss of income, tree values and replacement land costs because those heads were either reflected in the land value or lacked evidential support; court ordered an increased award of RM88,060, interest at 5% p.a. on that sum from Form 'K', return of deposit, and directed payment of assessors' fees by t…
8 Aug 2022

SUNRISE GREEN SDN BHD JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN PERSEKUTUAN

Citation

W-01(W)-653-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

W
Case number

W-01(W)-653-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the injurious affection award must be confined to the damaged portion (Lot 487) because the adjoining lots remained physically intact, the loss of frontage affected only Lot 487, and an alternative access via Lot 490—approved by DBKL—meant the development was not landlocked; the appellant failed to prove otherwise and the trial judge's factual findings were not to be disturbed on appeal.
30 Jun 2022

1. ) Jugajorthy A/p Visvanathan 2. ) JUGAJORTHY A/P VISVANATHAN (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA BAGI MENDIANG SUAMINYA SIVASEGARAN A/L KANDIAH,M SIMATI) 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH, DAERAH SEBERANG PERAI TENGAH, PULAU PINANG 2. ) Ketua Peng

Citation

P-01(NCvC)(W)-319-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-01(NCvC)(W)-319-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the plaintiffs' claims against the Land Administrator and KPTG were time‑barred under s2(a) PAPA because plaintiffs had knowledge of the acquisition well outside the 36‑month period; omissions in service did not invalidate the acquisition by virtue of the proviso to s11(1) and s56 LAA; no fraud or mala fide was established; therefore the High Court erred in setting aside the acquisition as void and ordering return of the land in respect of those respondents.
30 Jun 2022

Ketua Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Pulau Pinang 1. ) Jugajorthy A/p Visvanathan 2. ) JUGAJORTHY A/P VISVANATHAN (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA BAGI MENDIANG SUAMINYA SIVASEGARAN A/L KANDIAH,M SIMATI)

Citation

P-01(NCvC)(W)-325-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-01(NCvC)(W)-325-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the plaintiffs' claim against the Land Administrator and KPTG was time‑barred under s2(a) PAPA 1948 because knowledge of the cause accrued well before the writ of 26.5.2014; omissions to serve Form E and related forms did not invalidate the acquisition due to s11(1) proviso and s56 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960; there was no established fraud or mala fide by the authorities; accordingly appeals by Pentadbir Tanah and KPTG allowed and the High Court order set aside in part, while the plaintiffs' separate appeal was dismissed.
30 Jun 2022

PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH, DAERAH SEBERANG PERAI TENGAH, PULAU PINANG 1. ) Jugajorthy A/p Visvanathan 2. ) Jugajorthy A/p Visvanathan(Sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Bagi Mendiang Suaminya Sivasegaran A/L Kandiah, Si mati)

Citation

P-01(NCvC)(W)-318-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-01(NCvC)(W)-318-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the plaintiffs' claims against the Pentadbir Tanah and KPTG were time-barred under s.2(a) PAPA 1948 because the causes of action accrued well over 36 months before filing; limitation under s.2(a) is mandatory and may be relied upon even if not pleaded. The court found no established fraud or mala fide that would invalidate the acquisition; non-service of Form E on the registered proprietors did not vitiate the proceedings where Form D was gazetted and Form E was served on the registered chargee (MARA) and where the proviso to s.11(1) and s.56 operate to cure omissions…
12 May 2022

LIM MENG YIOW PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR BAHRU

Citation

JA-15-37-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-15-37-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court upheld the respondent's compensation awards because the applicant failed to adduce admissible material to import another court's award as a comparison (Third Schedule procedural rules require affidavit and opportunity for comment), valuation comparisons must follow statutory evidentiary rules, and although the building was unauthorised and normally disregarded under s.1(3A) First Schedule, the court maintained the building award of RM246,100.00 because it had already been granted by the respondent at the inquiry; the applicant's requests for increased land and building awards were r…
20 May 2021

PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH JOHOR NUSANTARA DAYA SDN BHD

Citation

01(f)-24-08/2019(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-24-08/2019(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The ten questions framed and the three principal complaints (size deduction, alleged double counting for location/access/layer, and failure to adjust for development potential) were factual valuation issues or applications of valuation principles, not questions of law within the narrow exception recognized in Semenyih Jaya; therefore the Court of Appeal erred in treating them as questions of law, and its decision was set aside with the High Court award restored.