In 2017, the Federal Court in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah

Hulu Langat & another case struck down section 40D of the Land Acquisition Act

1960 (LAA), which essentially provides that the Court has no choice but to decide on

the value of land acquired from the amount provided by the two assessors. Indirectly,

this decision reaffirmed that ‘judicial power’ rests in the Courts alone and cannot be

delegated to third parties by the legislature. The downside of section 40D of the LAA

has theorize the role of assessors in land reference proceedings. With this case being a

landmark in the constitutional law field , the fact that how ground-breaking this case

has been in the matter of land aquisition land has often been overlooked.

In this case, the plaintiffs Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd, being the registered proprietor

of a piece of land located in the District of Ulu Langat, was notified of the intended

compulsory acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. An enquiry

was conducted by The Land Administrator in which he determine the amount of

compensation payable to the Developer that amounted to RM20,862,281.75. The

Developer had dissatisfied and objected to the adequacy of the award and was

referred to the High Court for determination. The objection was heard and determined

by the High Court Judge who sat with two assessors. The High Court allowed the

Developer’s claim for severance and injurious affection nevertheless dismissing the

other claims of compensation sought by the Developer. On appeal, the Developer’s

appeal was dismissed against the decision of the High Court. At the Federal Court,

one of the issues that came under the spotlight was whether section 40D of the LAA is

constitutional. The court here observed the difference this section had in its existence

and prior to 1984. The salient difference will be the roles that the assesors had. Prior

to 1984, they were limited to assist the judge on technical issues and now, they are

empowered to decide on the amount of compensation to be awarded with this being

non-appealable. This has been seen as undermining the powers of the judge and it

deemed to be unconstitutional by the Court thus striking out this provision.

Furthermore, the Court in this case had expanded the scope of “market value” in

land acquisition to include loss of business. This ruling opens the door to the

multifaceted scenarios where loss of business can occur in calculating the value of

acquired land, which will largely benefit business owners. In so doing, the Federal

Court sought to give the full effect to the right to property under Article 13(1) of the

Federal Constitution. There were two cases which were heard and decided together in

this decision where both parties were dissatisfied with the land administrator’s award

on the amount of compensation for their land. The factual circumstances relating to

Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd were more pronounced because the questions for leave relate

directly to the scope of ‘market value’ in land acquisition. The Federal Court in this

case went on to hold that:

I. By virtue of Article 121(1) of the Constitution, the power to award compensation

in land reference proceedings is a judicial power that is vested in the High Court

judge sitting in the Land Reference Court.

II. Section 40D (1) and (2) of the 1960 Act which gives such judicial power to

assessors who are not members of the judiciary is ultra vires Article 121 of the

Federal Constitution.

III. Section 40D(1) and (2) of the 1960 Act ignores the role of judges as defenders of

the Constitution and renders the constitutional guarantee of adequate

compensation illusory since judges “abdicate” their constitutional role, for the

guarantee of adequate compensation is now in the hands of two lay assessors.

IV. This case made it clear that the assessors are merely the advisors whose role is to

give an opinion on the valuation to assist the judge in making a determination on

adequate compensation:

V. The assessors are expected to listen to the proceedings and evaluate the evidence.

They may also be required to answer any questions of fact within their

competence, consonant with their role as advisors under section 40(2) of the 1960

Act.

VI. At the end of the proceedings, the assessors are required to give their opinion in

writing as to the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded in a

particular case and the role of assessors ends here.

In light of the matters above, this assignment seeks to discuss three points

reflected by the questions of law raised to the Federal Court. The first point will be

what is Article 13 of the Federal Constitution and section 3 of the Land Acquisition

Act. The following point will be the matters to be considered in determining

Compensation to be paid, methods and criteria of arriving at the value of adequate

compensation. Last but not least, it will be the linkage point where we will link the

effect of the Semenyih Jaya case towards Article 13 of the Federal Compensation and

the award of compensation.

 In Malaysia, an individual who owns a property enjoys protection as conferred in

the Federal Constitution. However, the protection which is conferred in the Federal

Constitution is not absolute. The word “property” is too wide to be defined. There are

many things such as landed property, moveable property, money and intellectual

property that falls within the definition of property. In the Federal Constitution, the

rights of property was established in Article 13. Article 13 (1) of Federal Constitution

establish the principle among others by stating that no one can be deprived of his

property by an executive order in the absence of law authorizing such deprivation.1

The word in ‘law’ in Article 13 is an obvious example of why the rights is not

absolute. The word ‘law’ in the provision can be any law enacted. Hence, the

provision hardly gives any protection to a person against any harsh law made by a

legislature. 2

In the case of Arumugam Pillai v Government of Malaysia, it was held that

whenever a competent legislature enacts a law to the extent on any of its legislative

powers destroying or otherwise depriving a man of his property, the latter is precluded

from questioning its reasonableness by invoking Article 13 (1) of the Federal

Constitution, however arbitrary the law might possibly be. 3 So it can be said that

Article 13 (1) of the Federal Constitution incorporates safeguard due to ‘jus’ concept

of law but the protection under this Constitution is very limited.

According to the Federal Constitution, nobody has the rights to take away

anyone’s property when the law recognizes his right to his property. But in Malaysia,

the Land Acquisition Act 1960 empowers the State Authority the right to acquire any

1
FC Article 13 (1)
2
Hafizul Mukhlis, 'Art 13 rights to property' (slides 2014)
<https://www.slideshare.net/HabibJoelAlMukhlis/art-13-rights-to-property> accessed 29th August
2019
3
Arumugam Pillai v Government of Malaysia [1975] 2 MLJ 29
land if its needed to be used for public purposes. This means that an individual’s

property can be taken away by the State Authority if they want to take it away even if

he or she did not owe or indebted in any manner. But, the individual whose land is

being acquired by the State Authority should have been compensated. This has been

guaranteed under Article 13(2) of Federal Constitution where it states that no law

shall give the right to compulsory acquisition of land without an adequate

compensation to the owner.

The purpose of the land acquisition which was given in Section 3(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act has a very wide scope and range. The term “public purposes” in this

provision was not defined in the Land Acquisition Act. In the case of S.Kulasingam

& Anor v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors, it was held that the

phrase “public purposes” cannot be precisely defined, therefore it has to be tested

whether the purpose serves the general interest of the country.4 Under the second limb

of the provision it also stated that the land can be acquired by a person or a

corporation other than the government itself if the purpose of the acquisition is

accepted by the State Authority as beneficial to the economic development of

Malaysia.5

The process of the land acquisition involves submission of applicable Forms

provided in the Act. On the first stage of application, the requirement is that Form 1

should be submitted together with the project proposal, layout and land acquisition

plan, preliminary valuation report, fee and deposit.6 This has been laid down in

section 3(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1950. Then the Land Administer will

transmit the application and the supporting documents to the State Economic Planning

4
S.Kulasingam & Anor v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 204
5
LAA 1960 s 3 (1)(b)
6
LAA 1960 s 3 (3)(a-d)
Unit (SEPU) or in the case of Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (FTKL), to the

Committee.7 If the application does not comply with the requirements, the Land

Administrator has the rights to reject the application under the same provision. If the

acquisition is not for the public purpose the State Authority must not consider the

application.

The second stage of the land acquisition process is consideration. State Economic

Planning Unit (SEPU) or Committee for FTKL should consider certain matters before

the approval of the application. The primary subject matter that should be considered

of the application is that the purpose of the acquisition. The purpose should be a

public interest. SEPU and Committee for FTKL also must consider the capacity of

the applicant to carry out the purpose for which the land has to be acquired. Both of

the Committee also must take into consideration the feasibility of the project and the

development approval granted to the registered proprietor8.

Once the SEPU or Committee for FTKL determine whether the registered

proprietor can participate in the case after considering all the matters stated above, the

applicant will be allowed to negotiate with the proprietor within a specified period9.

Then, the applicant must report the details of the result of the negotiation and the

nature and extension of participant by proprietor in the project10. If the negotiations

are successful, the application for the acquisition will not be proceeded with any

further.

Finally, the decision will be made by the State Authority. State Authority may

approve or reject the application. Upon approval the Land Administrator will notify

7
LAA 1960 s 3 (4)
8
LAA 1960 s 3A (1)
9
LAA 1960 s 3A (3)
10
LAA 1960 s 3A (4)
the applicant in Form 5 of the approval together with terms and conditions within 14

days of the receipt of approval11.

11
LAA 1960 s 3E (3)
 Under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the amount of compensation will be
determined according to the First Schedule of the Act. Before proceeding to the
method that shall be used in determining the assessment, one must be aware that the
power to grant and make such amount was bestowed upon the judge, as prescribed
under Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution. this power was then fortified in S. 2
and the provisions of sub-s 36(4) of the Act. This was further explained in the case of
Semenyih Jaya Sdn. Bhd. V Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and another
case12, where the judges had quoted the case of Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Yap
Peng13, that highlights the exercise of judicial power, which carries two features
which are that the judicial power must be exercised in accordance with the judicial
process of the judicature and that the power is vested only in persons appointed to
hold judicial office. Thus, only a sitting judge as prescribed under the Federal
Constitution may exercise this power. The Federal Court judges in that case also had
explained that under the First Schedule, the quantum of compensation is based on the
market value of the land acquired plus the consequential loss suffered by the affected
land owners and occupants. They further elaborate that the assessment of
compensation is underpinned by the principle of equivalence. The affected land
owners and occupants are entitled not only to the market value of the land but also to
compensation for the loss and disturbance occasioned, arising out of the acquisition.
In order to make a claim, the assessment must be done within the ambit of para 2 of
the First Schedule.
Para 2 of the First Schedule dictates that there are six matters to be
determined, in order to allow such claim of compensation to be granted by the court.
The matters to be considered under the Act are: (a) market value; (b) increase in value
of the other land of the person from whom land is acquired; (c) damage caused by
severance from any other land of the person from whom the land is acquired; (d)
injurious affection; (e) forced change of residence or place of business due to
acquisition; and (f) where only part of the land is acquired, any undertaking given by
the state authority for the provision of facilities for the portion left unacquired14. In
determining the amount to be considered as adequate compensation, the Federal Court
in the case of Semenyih Jaya had applied the decision made in the case of Director of
Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd15 where the Privy Council held that
Land may, of course, have a special value to a claimant over and above the
price it would fetch if sold in the open market. Fair compensation requires that
he should be paid for the value of the land to him, not its value generally or its
value to the acquiring authority. As already noted, this is well established. If
he is using the land to carry on a business, the value of the land to him will
include the value of his being able to conduct his business there without
disturbance. Compensation should cover this disturbance loss as well as the
market value of the land itself. The authority which takes the land on
resumption or compulsory acquisition does not acquire the business, but the

12
[2017] 3 MLJ 561 (FC)
13
Ibid 595
14
Ibid 615, para 201
15
Ibid 613
 resumption or acquisition prevents the claimant from continuing his business
on the land. So the claimant loses the land and, with it, the special value it had
for him as the site of his business. The expenses and any losses he incurs in
moving his business to a new site will ordinarily be the measure of the special
loss he sustains by being deprived of the land and disturbed in his enjoyment
of it. If, exceptionally, the business cannot be moved elsewhere, so it simply
has to close down, prima facie his loss will be measured by the value of the
business as a going concern. In practice it is customary and convenient to
assess the value of the land and the disturbance loss separately, but strictly in
law these are no more than two inseparable elements of a single whole in that
together they make up the value of the land to the owner.
In the case of Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak lwn Huat Heng (Lim Low &
Sons) Sdn Bhd16, which was also cited by the Federal Judges in the case of Semenyih
Jaya, the Supreme Court held that “the basic principle governing compensation is that
the sum awarded should, as far as practicable, place the person in the same financial
position as he would have been in had there been no question of his land being
compulsorily acquired”. Then Federal Court judges further explain that the principle
that was mentioned in the Huat Leng (Lim Low & Sons) case is known as the principle
of equivalence. The principle states that the affected land owners and occupants are
entitled to be compensated fairly for their loss. But they should receive compensation
that is no more or no less than the loss resulting from the compulsory acquisition of
their land17. Thus, in determining an adequate compensation, the Court must consider
the special claims that was made by the claimant regarding their whole business
operation, their place of business and future losses due to the compulsory land
acquisition by the Land Authority.
The rules in determining the market value of the said land can be found under
the First Schedule of the Act. According to the Act, the market value of a land that to
be compensated, must be stated on the date of the publication in the Gazette of the
notification. The notice must be done according to S.4 of the Act, which provides that
a preliminary notice of acquisition must be produce during the determination of the
market value of the said land. The notice must be produced within 12 months after the
notification of acquisition was produced. This form is available under Schedule 2 of
the Act. Furthermore, after the release of such notice, the Land Authority, whom
acquiring the land must provide a declaration that the land is being used for public
purpose, as per S. 8 and Schedule 1 para 1(1)(a) of the Act. The Land Authority also
may determine the market value of the said land on the date of the publication of the
Gazette of the acquisition as per S.8, Form 4 and Schedule 1(1)(a), respectively. In
determining the market value of the said land, under the Act, that the value of the land
shall be determined by the recent sales of similar characteristics within the same
vicinity, for the last two years18. In other words, at the material time of the
transaction. The value of the land shall be determined according to the transaction of
land within the vicinity of the land for the past two years. Under the First Schedule, it

16 Ibid 614
17 Ibid 614, para 199
18
Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486), Sch 1 para 1(1A)
is stated that when only part of the land to be acquired, the whole plot of land must
also be considered by the Land Authority in determining the market value of the
land19. The price will not be determined by land transactions after the publication of
the Gazette20. Furthermore, under the same Schedule, if the land is leased to a
proprietor for a duration for a specific period of time, the Land Authority must take
into consideration of the amount of years before the end of the lease but not to those
who are the subsequent leaser21. The other rules that must be considered are whether
the land is under Malay Reserved land, an estate land within the meaning the National
Land Code where that land will not affected by the fact that it can be sold to one
person22, whether there are any express or implied terms23 regarding the special status
of the land as under Antiquities Act 1976 and whether the local authority has any
planning for the said land24.
In formulating the compensation that can be considered as adequate
compensation, the Federal Court judges then e. xplain the need for the sitting judge to
consider the principle of business compensationThe judges had cited the principle
given by the Privy Council in the case of Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd, where the court
had laid out three basis to be considered in determining the compensation. They are
business compensation, relocation basis and extinguishment basis. If the business is
affected by the acquisition of the land, the business may entitle for business
compensation whereas if it is affected and can be relocated, the compensation must
consider the loss of profits and incidental costs of relocation. To calculate loss of
profits, the period where the business stop doing their business in order to relocate
until the business is already be relocated. This however, must be done within the
reasonable time frame. If it is not, then it is the duty of the claimant to keep the loss of
profit to the minimum as there will be question on the presumption on the value of the
money. Furthermore, the compensation incurred for relocation shall not exceed the
amount that is to be determined for the extinguishment of the business. As for the
compensation for extinguishment of the business, the amount shall be determined by
the goodwill contained in the market value of the land, not from future loss of profits.
The general rule of this principle is that the loss must not be too remote as the amount
to be considered must be within its natural and reasonable consequences of the
acquisition25. Under the paragraph 2(e)26, the Act provides that a claimant is entitled
for “reasonable expenses” as to the relocation of the place of residence or place of
business, where it covers the actual cost of relocation and incidental costs that accrued
due to the relocation. This however did not cover the extinguishment basis or
goodwill of a business.
The learned Federal Court judges also viewed that the value of the land must also be
considered with the profit value in determining the market value of the said land. The

19 Land Acquisition Act 1960, Sch 1 para 1(1B)

20 Land Acquisition Act 1960, Sch 1 para 1(1C)
21 Land Acquisition Act 1960, Sch 1 para 1(1D)
22
Land Acquisition Act 1960, Sch 1 para 1(2D)
23 Land Acquisition Act 1960, Sch 1 para 1(2)
24 Land Acquisition Act 1960, Sch 1 para 1(2BA)
25 Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd (n1) 615, 616
26
Land Acquisition Act 1960, Sch 1 para 2(e)
learned judges had also relied in the decision made in the case of Ng Tiou Hong v
Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak, where Syed Agil Barakbah FJ said that:
… its potentialities must be taken into account. The nature of the land and the
use to which it is being put at the time of acquisition have to be taken into
account together with the likelihood to which it is reasonably capable of being
put to use in the future e.g. the possibility of it being used for building or other
developments.
The process in determining the adequate compensation when the claimant claimed for
extinguishment of the business was provided by the learned judges where they were
in view that paragraph 1(1A) did provide the solution to address such issue. Paragraph
1(1A) of the Schedule provides that the valuer may use any suitable method of
valuation to arrive at the market value in determining the cost of the land. The learned
judges are in view that, based on that provision, any appropriate method may be use
in serving the valuer to provide equivalent compensation to the claimant. The method
may include considering the basis of replacement cost.
Thus, the effect of the Semenyih Jaya case had change the landscape on the process of
acquisition of land in Malaysia. The decision made in that case had ensured that
Article 13 of the Federal Constitution being upheld by the Judiciary. Furthermore,
their decision had shown a clear path in determining adequate compensation for land
acquisition in Malaysia and methods to be considered for lower court judges, in
determining the amount that shall be considered, in considering adequate
compensation to the claimant.

Bibliography
Syarikat Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and
another case [2017] MLJ 3 (Federal Court), p.561.
Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486)
Body Part 3
Discussion on the effect of Semenyih Jaya case to Article 13 of Federal
Constitution and to Award of Compensation.
Article 13 of the Federal Constitution reads as follows “(1) No person shall be
deprived of property save in accordance with law. (2) No law shall provide for the
compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.”27 Article
13 of the Federal Constitution peruses to such an extent that no individual will be
deprived of property spare as per law and no law will accommodate the necessary
acquisition or utilization of property without adequate compensation. The right to
procure, hold and appreciate property is a fundamental right ensured by the Federal
Constitution. Anyway it is anything but an absolute right since ownership of property
is liable to what is accommodated in the Federal Constitution. One's property can be
gained by the state. However, such acquisition would need to be done as per law. The
Federal Constitution additionally defends the right of the land proprietor to get
adequate compensation because of his land being gained. Article 13(2) specifically
makes provisions for installment of adequate compensation for the property procured.
Article 13(2) is established under the Federal Constitution as to guarantee the
land proprietors to get 'adequate compensation' upon acquisition. Indeed, even as the
Act approves the state to gain land from land proprietors, the law gives that the
individual deprived of his property must be adequately compensated. Be that as it
may, what is adequate compensation for an individual who has been deprived of their
property? The term 'adequate compensation' has not been defined in the Act. As in
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak v Huat Heng (Lim Low and Sons) Sdn Bhd 28, the
Supreme Court held that the essential principle administering compensation is that the
sum awarded should, the extent that practicable, place the individual in the equivalent
financial position as he would have been in had there been no doubt of his land being
necessarily obtained.29
The above principle is known as the principle of equivalence. By this
principle, the influenced land proprietors and occupants are qualified for be
compensated decently for their loss. In any case, they ought to get compensation that
is no more or no not exactly the loss coming about because of the necessary
acquisition of their land.
An appraisal of compensation emerging out of an acquisition is administered
by the First Schedule of the Federal Constitution. 30In light of the First Schedule, the
quantum of compensation depends on the market value of the land procured in
addition to the consequential loss endured by the influenced landowners and

27
Malaysia: Federal Constitution, 31 August 1957, Agc.gov.my. (2019). [online] Available at:
http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/FC/Federal%20Consti%20(BI%20text).pdf
[Accessed 3 Sep. 2019].
28
Compulsory Acquisition Of Land In Malaysia – Recent Development' (1998) 2 Journal of Valuation and
Property Services, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministtry Of Finance Malaysia.
29
[1990] 3 MLJ 282 Anon, (2019). [online] Available at:
https://www.cljlaw.com.proxyvlib.mmu.edu.my/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?CaseId=2410283521&SearchI
d=7mmu1 [Accessed 3 Sep. 2019].
30
First Schedule of Federal constitution. (2001). Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law Journal.
occupants. Hence an appraisal of compensation is supported by the principle of
equivalence. The influenced land proprietors and occupants are qualified not just for
the market value of the land yet additionally to compensation for the loss and
unsettling influence occasioned, emerging out of the acquisition. For a claim to be
permitted, it must fall inside the heads of compensation recorded in paragraph 2 of the
First Schedule.
In view of paragraph 2 of the First Schedule there are six matters which are to
be mulled over when compensation is resolved. The heads of compensation are
market value, increment in value of the other land of the individual from whom land
is procured, damage brought about by severance from some other land of the
individual from whom the land is obtained, injurious affection, constrained difference
in residence or spot of business because of acquisition and where just piece of the
land is gained, any endeavor given by the state authority for the provision of facilities
for the portion left unacquired.
Paragraph 1 of the First Schedule is the market value rule. For the most part,
the market value of an obtained land includes the value of the land gained dependent
on tantamount deals in the vicinity of the procured land and the state of the land
having respect to the presence of any buildings, enhancements to the land and any
encumbrances and limitations in the title.
By paragraph 3, any issue which falls inside the portrayals gave in the
paragraph must not be contemplated in evaluating the amount of compensation. Such
matters incorporate the desperation in gaining the land and any depreciation or
increment in the value of the land procured because of the acquisition.
The principle of business compensation has been clarified by the Privy
Council on account of Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd.31 In the event that an individual's
business situated on an obtained land is influenced by the acquisition, he is qualified
for claim for business compensation. On the off chance that the business can be
migrated, compensation is evaluated on a relocation premise. Be that as it may, if the
business is unequipped for being migrated, compensation is surveyed on an
extinguishment premise.
In relocation premise, a claimant is qualified for claim for loss of profits and
accidental expenses of relocation. Loss of profits is to be evaluated for the reasonable
time it take store find a business in another spot. Anyway such costs must not be
unreasonable and that relocation must be sensibly practicable. There is a commitment
on the claimants to find a way to guarantee that their losses are kept to a base. In this
manner where a more expensive rate is paid for the re location premises, there is a
presumption of value for cash.
Compensation for the relocation of a business ought to by and large not
surpass the compensation that would be resolved for the extinguishment of the
business as in Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd.

31
[2019] 1 LNS 528 [2019]. [Accessed 3 Sep 2019]
 In cases where relocation is impracticable, no compensation is to be resolved
for loss of future profits. Rather the claim is to be viewed as dependent on 'the
extinguishment premise'. The loss of business goodwill is contained inside the market
value of the land. The claim does not in this manner structure the reason for a thing of
consequential loss.
The general principle administering the degree of compensation claimable for
consequential loss as of the case of Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation32 is
that such loss must not be excessively remote and that it is the normal and reasonable
result of the acquisition.
Paragraph 2(e) of the First Schedule gives that a claimant is qualified for
reasonable costs acquired by him in the event that he is constrained to change his
residence or spot of business. Such claim takes care of the genuine expense of moving
to new premises and costs coincidental to such change. Anyway the First Schedule
makes no reference to a claim for loss of business goodwill when relocation is
unfeasible. 33
The senior federal counsel in the interest of the respondent affirmed that the
litigant isn't qualified for a claim for loss of business profits in the absence of any
explicit provision in the Act with respect to such claim. Paragraph 2 has clarified that,
in deciding the amount of compensation to be awarded for any scheduled land gained
under this Act there will be thought about the accompanying matters and no others. It
was presented that a claim for compensation must be awarded in the event that it falls
inside the heads of compensation portrayed in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule and
no others. 34
It needs accentuation that the market value rule in paragraph 1 must not be
interpreted unbendingly. It is vital that paragraph 1 of the First Schedule itself does
not define the term market value. Rather it counts the way toward deciding market
value of the land. Aside from the cost of similar offers of the procured land in the
vicinity, the states of the land structure a premise in the calculation of market value.
Along these lines any limitations in title, any specification and class in the land use
should be considered in deciding the market value of the land. Likewise, any
improvement made by the proprietor to the land subject to the limitation forced in
paragraph 1 and the presence of any structure regarding the matter land are
additionally to be considered.
In the present case, the genuine state of the appealing party's land at the hour
of acquisition obviously was that the litigant had just set out on economically forming
the land into a modern zone. In this manner the appealing party's loss of business is to
be joined in the improvement value or profit value of the land shaping piece of the
market value of the procured land. In deciding market value of the land as expressed

32
Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation [1957] 1 QB 485. [Accesed 3 Sep 2019]
33
Rau, K. (2000). Land acquisition in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: International Law Book Services.
34
The Sun Daily, 'Power To Decide Land Acquisition Compensation Awarded To Judges: Federal Court'
(2017) <https://www.thesundaily.my/archive/power-decide-land-acquisition-compensation-awarded-judges-
federal-court-HTARCH440386> accessed 3 September 2019.
in paragraph 2(a) of the First Schedule, the land executive and the court must offer
consideration to the profit value of the land at the hour of acquisition.
It very well may be seen that the Act is sufficiently flexible to take into
consideration the assurance of equivalent compensation in the conditions of the
present case. Compensation ought to be for loss of any land obtained, for buildings
and different enhancements to the land procured, for the decrease in value of any land
held because of acquisition and for any consequential losses to the livelihoods of the
proprietors and occupants. An unbending use of nitty gritty provisions may bring
about landowners and occupants not being compensated for losses that are not
explicitly identified in the legislation.
An appropriate perception is that paragraph 1(1A) in the First Schedule was
embedded by Act A999 in order to permit flexibility when surveying the amount of
market value of a land gained.
Paragraph 1(1A) peruses sych that Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah
Daerah Hulu Langat in surveying the market value of any scheduled land, the valuer
may utilize any appropriate strategy for valuation to touch base at the market value
gave that respect possibly had to the costs paid for the ongoing sales of lands with
comparative qualities as the scheduled land which are arranged inside the vicinity of
the scheduled land and with specific consideration being given to the keep going
exchange on the scheduled land inside two years from the date with reference to
which the scheduled land is to be evaluated under subparagraph (1). 35
In perspective on the abovementioned, albeit practically identical sales in the
vicinity of the procured land are a significant part in the calculation of market value of
a gained land, any appropriate technique for valuation is likewise permitted. In this
manner any suitable strategy that serves to give equivalent compensation to
influenced people can be connected. Such strategies may incorporate compensation
paid based on replacement costs.

35
July 26, 2017 MALAYSIA - LAND ACQUISITION - SEMENYIH JAYA SDN BHD V PENTADBIR
TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT AND ANOTHER CASE [2017] 3 MLJ 561'
<https://sstieh.blogspot.com/2017/07/malaysia-land-acquisition-semenyih-jaya.html> accessed 3 September
2019.
Conclusion

The judicial decision in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu
Langat & Anor had bring many benefits to the public at large especially for the land
owners in cases involving land acquisition by the State Authority. This is due to the
fact that such landmark case had recognize the basic structure docterine in which
involves the the adequate compensation of the acquired land.

The public now are able to claim to the court for a business compensation once
their land has been acquisited by the State Authority. This is because the Federal
Court in Semenyih Jaya case had explain the need for the sitting judge to consider the
principle of business compensation in such event where the business of the land
owner has been affected by the acquisition of the land. The decision in that case
portrays that the assessment of the compensation is underpinned by the principle of
equivalence. This means that the affected landowner and occupants are now entitle to
not only the market value of the land but also to the compensation for the loss and
disturbance of their business on the land.

However, the court also must consider the special claims made by the claimant in
regards to the whole business operation to ensure that they are able to arrive at a fair
& adequate amount of compensation. This is an important step as to ensure that the
right of the land owners can be adequately compensated as what has been guaranteed
under A.13(2) of the Federal Constitution.

Other than that, the importance of this case also can be seen where the judges had
strike out the provision of Section 40D (1) and (2) of LAA since there is a sailent
difference on the role of the assessors. Before 1984, the assessors were were limited
to assist the judge on technical issues. But now, they are empowered to decide on the
amount of compensation to be awarded with this being non-appealable. This has been
seen as undermining the powers of the judge and the provision deemed to be
unconstitutional by the Court.

Furthermore, the award of compensation now is made by the judges and the
judges are advised by two lay assessors in which their function is to give an opinion
on the valuation as to assist the judge in making a determination on adequate
compensation. This is a crucial principle where the judges now are being assisted by
two lay assessors as to ensure that the right to property can be properly exercised by
the Court to compensate the land owners in land acquisition cases.