LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compulsory - Compensation - Objection against - Land Acquisition Act 1960, s. 38(1) - Whether compensation reflected true market value of land - Whether applicant's valuer and government's valuer had come to common concurrence - Whether court had discretion to differ from amount decided upon by both assessors - Injurious affection to remainder of land - Whether amount awarded should be increased - Whether applicant should be compensated for earth filling works carried out to construct new house on remaining land - Whether applicant should be allowed to claim for damage to crops - Interest - Award of - Whether on increased computation - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 40D & 48 - National Land Code, s. 115

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compensation - Assessment of - Whether compensation reflected true market value of land - Whether applicant's valuer and government's valuer had come to common concurrence - Whether court had discretion to differ from amount decided upon by both assessors - Injurious affection to remainder of land - Whether amount awarded should be increased - Whether applicant should be compensated for earth filling works carried out to construct new house on remaining land - Whether applicant should be allowed to claim for damage to crops - Interest - Award of - Whether on increased computation - Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 40D & 48 - National Land Code, s. 115

CHE SOM CHE MAT v. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KERIAN
HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
LEE SWEE SENG JC
[LAND REFERENCE NO: 15-17-2011]
1 JULY 2013

A part of the applicant's land situated in the district of Kerian, Perak (`the land') was compulsorily acquired for the purpose of a project to construct a switching station (`the project'). The applicant was awarded the sum of RM25,326 for the partial loss of land and RM41,775.75 for injurious affection. The applicant was not satisfied with the total award of RM67,101.75 and filed an objection under s. 38(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (`the Act'), on the grounds that (i) the compensation did not reflect the true market value of the land; (ii) he had been insufficiently compensated for the injuries sustained by the remaining portion of the land; and (iii) he had not been compensated for the earth filling works carried out to construct a new house on the remaining land. A claim for compensation for the damage to crops caused by the floods arising from the excavation works on the project was also made. The applicant's valuer submitted that the determination of the market value of the land ought to be based on the evidence of transactions within the neighbourhood as at the date of the compulsory acquisition. Based on the evidence of these comparables and after factoring in the necessary adjustments, the applicant's valuer contended that the value of the land should be RM3.40 per square foot (`psf'), while the government valuer suggested that the value psf should be RM1.25.

Held (allowing the applicant an increased compensation of RM98,467.75 with interest):

(1) At present, property valuation is both a science as well as an art with room for definitiveness and discretion in as much as there is room for a right value as for a range of values. Thus, so long as the various adjustments had been referred to in arriving at the market value of the land from a common comparable, then that would suffice. That was where the rationale for s. 40D of the Act, which provided that the amount of compensation to be awarded should be the amount decided upon by the two assessors, ie, the applicant's valuer and the government's valuer, became relevant. In the present case, the two assessors had in their written signed report finally agreed on RM1.50 psf as being a reasonable market value of the land. As both assessors, who were the experts for the market value of the land, had come to a common concurrence, there was no reason to consider the matter further but merely to comply with their computed market value. As such, the sum awarded for the partial loss of land was increased from RM25,326 to RM30,289.60 (RM1.50 x 20,193 sq ft). (paras 13, 14, 16, 18 & 19)

(2) Both assessors were in agreement that the `Before and After Method' was the most appropriate method for assessing the amount of injurious affection caused. They also agreed that based on the detrimental effects of the compulsory acquisition, the total diminution in value of the remaining land, which represented the compensation required to reinstate the land, would amount to 70% or RM113,020.89. As the remaining land was calculated as 0.9241 hectare, the amount awarded for injurious affection would be RM104,500 (0.9241 hectare x RM113,020.89). Thus, the increase in computation was RM62,724.25, with the former award of RM41,775.75 deducted from the present award of RM104,500. (paras 22-24)

(3) Under s. 115 of the National Land Code (`NLC'), the owner of agricultural land was allowed to use one-fifth of the land for dwelling purposes. When the land was inspected, evidence showed that the applicant landowner had engaged a contractor to prepare the site for rebuilding a house on the land. It was pointed out that the filled up area approximately 3/4 acre in size was acquired and the cost of earth filling was not compensated. There was evidence of loss of earth filling. Thus, the applicant ought to be allowed to claim the sum of RM21,780 for the earth works she had incurred in order to construct a new house. (paras 25-27)

(4) The applicant's valuer had observed that about 60 oil palms of about 23 years, which were yielding fresh fruits, had been affected by the flood caused by the excavation works undertaken by the Land Administrator's contractor. Although the applicant's valuer had estimated the cost of reinstating the crops to be RM18,000 (60 oil palm trees at RM300 per tree), there was no evidence tendered on how the valuer arrived at the cost of RM300 per tree. In the circumstances and since the trees were already 23 years old, which is the average fruit producing life span of oil palm trees, the sum of RM9,000 (60 oil palm trees at RM150 per tree) would be a more accurate award for damage to crops. (paras 30-32)

(5) Section 48 of the Act provides for interest to be awarded. Thus, the Land Administrator was ordered to pay the applicant interest at 8% per annum on the increased compensation sum of RM98,467.75 from the date when he took possession of the land to the date of payment to the applicant. (paras 37-39)

Case(s) referred to:

Bertam Consolidated Rubber Co Ltd v. The Collector of Land Revenue, Province Wellesley North Butterworth [1984] 1 CLJ 69; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 78 FC (refd)

Bukit Rajah Rubber Company Ltd v. Collector of Land Revenue, Klang [1967] 1 LNS 12 HC (refd)

Chuah Say Hai & Ors v. Collector of Land Revenue, Kuala Lumpur [1967] 1 LNS 34 HC (refd)

Nanyang Manufacturing Co v. The Collector of Land Revenue, Johore [1953] 1 LNS 59 HC (refd)

Ng Tiou Hong v. Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak [1984] 1 CLJ 350; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 289 FC (refd)

Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling v. Glenmarie Estate Ltd [1992] 1 CLJ 360; [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 272 SC (refd)

Rickets v. Metropolitan Railway Company [1867] LR 2 HL 175 (refd)

Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Ong See Teong & Anor [2010] 2 CLJ 1 FC (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Federal Constitution, art. 13(2)

Land Acquisition Act 1960, ss. 1(1A), 2(a), (d), 38(1), 40D(1), (2), 48

National Land Code, ss. 115(4)(a), 283

Other source(s) referred to:

KV Padmanabha Rau, Land Acquisition in Malaysia (Cases and Commentaries), p 178

Counsel:

For the applicant - Zamalik Abdul Rahman; M/s Pakatan Jurunilai & Perunding Hartanah

For the respondent - Teoh Chin Chong; Assistant State Legal Advisor Perak

Reported by Vani Krishnan



UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rasuah - Menerima suapan secara rasuah - Pertuduhan di bawah s. 16(a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan s. 165 Kanun Keseksaan - Tertuduh menerima sumbangan berbentuk wang - Sama ada tertuduh seorang penjawat awam - Sama ada menerima barangan berharga tanpa balasan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa pemberi sumbangan mempunyai hubungan rasmi dengan majikan - Sama ada anggapan statutori di bawah s. 50(3) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dipatahkan

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 165 - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan dibuktikan - Sama ada anggapan statutori di bawah s. 50(3) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dipatahkan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Keterangan - Sama ada bersifat `afterthought' - Sama ada tertuduh memberi keterangan yang konsisten dan jujur - Sama ada memberi faedah keraguan - Sama ada tertuduh berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan

PP lwn. MOHD HELMI DATO' HJ SHA'RI [2013] 2 SMC 223
MAHKAMAH SESYEN, JOHOR BAHRU
MOHAMAD HALDAR ABDUL AZIZ HS
[KES TANGKAP NO: 61-6-2011 & 61-7-2011]
9 APRIL 2012

Tertuduh (`OKT') dalam kes ini menghadapi tiga pertuduhan utama dan tiga pertuduhan pilihan di bawah s. 16(a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (`Akta SPRM') dan boleh dihukum di bawah Akta SPRM dan s. 165 Kanun Keseksaan (`Kanun'). Fakta kes menunjukkan bahawa OKT, selaku Setiausaha di Majlis Daerah Simpang Renggam (`MDSR') menyatakan bahawa dia telah diarahkan oleh Yang DiPertua Majlis Daerah Simpang Renggam (`SP8') untuk menguruskan satu rombongan lawatan ke Jakarta-Bandung, Indonesia. Bagi membiayai pakej lawatan tersebut, OKT telah meminta sumbangan daripada seorang kontraktor (`SP11'), yang bersetuju untuk menyumbang sebanyak RM50,000 yang diserahkan melalui dua keping cek masing-masing bernilai RM48,000 dan RM2,000. Cek-cek tersebut telah diserahkan kepada OKT yang kemudiannya menyerahkan bayaran tersebut kepada Syarikat TH Travel & Services Sdn Bhd (`THTS') yang dipilih sebagai agensi pelancongan untuk menguruskan lawatan tersebut. OKT juga telah meminta sumbangan daripada seorang lagi kontraktor (`SP7') yang telah memberikan sumbangan sebanyak RM10,000 secara tunai kepada OKT. Bagi pertuduhan di bawah s. 165 Kanun, pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan bahawa OKT: (i) adalah seorang penjawat awam; (ii) menerima suatu barang berharga; (iii) menerima barang tersebut tanpa balasan; dan (iv) mengetahui bahawa pemberi barang tersebut mempunyai hubungan dengan tugas rasminya. Daripada fakta, adalah jelas bahawa OKT merupakan seorang penjawat awam semasa kesalahan-kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan dilakukan. Pihak pendakwaan juga telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa OKT telah menerima barang-barang berharga tersebut, iaitu wang tunai sebanyak RM10,000, sekeping cek bernilai RM48,000 dan sekeping cek bernilai RM2,000 daripada SP7 dan SP11, dan barangan tersebut diterima tanpa balasan. Pihak pendakwaan juga telah mengemukakan keterangan bahawa OKT mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa SP7 dan SP11 mempunyai hubungan dengan urusan OKT sebagai penjawat awam, iaitu, sebagai Setiausaha MDSR. Pihak pembelaan pula membangkitkan pembelaan, antara lain, bahawa (i) pihak pendakwaan mempunyai beban yang lebih tinggi secara undang-undang untuk menghilangkan segala keraguan di peringkat kes pendakwaan kerana OKT telah mengemukakan pernyataan pembelaan di bawah s. 62 Akta SPRM; (ii) sumbangan yang diberikan telah ditujukan kepada MDSR dan Kelab Ahli Majlis MDSR dan tiada bukti yang boleh mengaitkan sumbangan tersebut dengan permintaan rasuah; dan (iii) tindakan OKT adalah atas arahan SP8 dan lawatan tersebut adalah arahan majikan di mana OKT menjalankan tugas rasmi.

Diputuskan (mensabitkan tertuduh):

(1) Tidak ada peruntukan di bawah s. 62 Akta SPRM, Kanun Tatacara Jenayah ataupun kes undang-undang yang menyatakan bahawa pihak pendakwaan bertanggungan secara undang-undang untuk menghilangkan segala keraguan di peringkat kes pendakwaan kerana OKT telah mengemukakan pernyataan pembelaan di bawah s. 62 Akta SPRM. Pernyataan di bawah s. 62 adalah hanya satu prosedur dan bukan "evidential" di mana ia hanya bertujuan untuk memberitahu kepada pihak pendakwaan tentang pembelaan OKT. Oleh itu, isu yang dibangkitkan oleh pihak pembelaan adalah tidak bermerit dan harus ditolak. (perenggan 22)

(2) OKT tidak menafikan bahawa, pada tarikh dan tempat di dalam ketiga-tiga pertuduhan pilihan tersebut, dia sebagai Setiausaha MDSR telah menerima tiga jenis barangan berharga iaitu wang tunai RM10,000 dan dua keping cek daripada SP7 dan SP11 bagi membiayai pakej lawatan ke Indonesia. OKT juga tidak pernah menafikan bahawa dia mengetahui SP7 ada kena mengena dalam urusan OKT sebagai seorang penjawat awam. (perenggan 28)

(3) SP8 dalam keterangannya telah menyatakan secara jelas dan konsisten bahawa dia tidak pernah mengarahkan OKT untuk meminta sumbangan daripada SP7 dan SP11. Arahan yang diberikan oleh SP8 hanyalah untuk menguruskan lawatan tersebut dan bukan untuk meminta sumbangan daripada SP7 dan SP11 yang mempunyai hubungan rasmi dengan MDSR. SP8 juga dengan jelas menafikan bahawa dia mengetahui atau telah dimaklumkan oleh OKT berkaitan dengan sumbangan yang telah diberikan oleh SP7 dan SP11. Keterangan SP8 disokong oleh keterangan SP7 dan SP11 yang mengesahkan bahawa SP8 tidak pernah meminta sumbangan daripada mereka dan menafikan bahawa SP8 yang telah mengarahkan mereka untuk memberikan sumbangan wang tunai dan cek-cek tersebut kepada OKT. (perenggan 25 & 28)

(4) Keterangan SP8 menunjukkan bahawa lawatan tersebut bukan merupakan satu lawatan rasmi kerana tidak ada kelulusan daripada Kerajaan Negeri Johor dan lawatan tersebut tidak menggunakan dana rasmi Kerajaan atau MDSR. Lawatan tersebut juga disertai oleh beberapa orang kontraktor dan orang awam selain daripada pegawai dan juga ahli Majlis MDSR. Malah, semasa lawatan tersebut, tidak ada program dan urusan rasmi yang dibuat untuk menunjukkan ia adalah lawatan rasmi. (perenggan 25)

(5) Tidak ada keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa wang tunai RM10,000 dan juga cek-cek tersebut adalah sumbangan kepada Kelab Ahli Majlis MDSR. Di atas fakta, tidak ada sebarang dokumen dan juga tiada saksi yang boleh menunjukkan dan membuktikan bahawa sumbangan tersebut diminta oleh Kelab Ahli Majlis MDSR. Malahan, OKT sendiri telah memberikan keterangan bahawa dia bukan ahli Kelab Ahli Majlis MDSR. Oleh demikian, keterangan yang mengatakan bahawa sumbangan tersebut adalah untuk Kelab Ahli Majlis MDSR adalah satu rekaan semata-mata oleh OKT. (perenggan 28)

(6) Pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh OKT adalah satu pembelaan yang bersifat penafian semata-mata. OKT berdolak dalik dan memberi keterangan yang berubah-ubah dan tidak konsisten semasa disoal oleh peguambelanya sendiri sewaktu di peringkat pemeriksaan utama. Oleh itu, jelas bahawa kredibiliti tertuduh boleh dipersoalkan dan dipertikaikan. OKT juga memberi keterangan yang bersifat "afterthought" semasa di peringkat kes pembelaan di mana keterangan tersebut tidak pernah disentuh dan dikemukakan sewaktu di peringkat kes pendakwaan. (perenggan 29)

(7) Pada asasnya, pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh OKT bukan merupakan satu penjelasan yang jujur di mana tidak ada keterangan yang boleh memberi faedah keraguan kepada OKT. Pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kesnya terhadap OKT tanpa sebarang keraguan yang munasabah, manakala OKT telah gagal menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pihak pendakwaan dan gagal mematahkan anggapan statutori di bawah s. 50(3) Akta SPRM. (perenggan 29)

[OKT dijatuhkan hukuman enam bulan penjara dan denda RM10,000 dan jika gagal bayar dikenakan empat bulan penjara bagi setiap pertuduhan.]

Kes-kes yang dirujuk:

Kong Kam-Piu and Another v. The Queen [1973] HKLR 120 (dirujuk)

PP v. Rosman Abdul Wahab [2006] 4 CLJ 615 HC (dirujuk)

Shaiful Idzam Sulaiman v. PP [2004] 2 CLJ 121 HC (dirujuk)

Zaini Nyak Othman lwn. PP [1999] 4 CLJ 765 HC (dirujuk)

Perundangan yang dirujuk:

Criminal Procedure Code, s. 51A

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, ss. 16(a)(B), 24, 50(3), 62

Penal Code, ss. 21, 165

Kaunsel:

Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Abdul Ghafar Ab Latif; TPR

Bagi pihak tertuduh - Rosli Kamaruddin; T/n Rosli Kamaruddin & Co

Dilaporkan oleh S Barathi

-