Azhana binti As’ad & Anor v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Langat

Appellant(s): Azhana Binti As'ad (Waris Pemilik Asad Bin Kasim) (PM 6364)

Respondent(s): Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Langat

• YAA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab
• YA Datuk Ismail Bin Brahim

• The State Government compulsorily acquired two plots of agricultural land belonging to the first and second appellants for a water treatment plant project pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("LAA").
• The respondent initially awarded compensation at RM180.00 per square metre, which the High Court subsequently increased to RM190.00 per square metre following land reference proceedings assisted by assessors.
• The appellants appealed the High Court's decision, contending that the valuation should have been significantly higher (RM275.00 per square metre) based on a specific sales comparable located within the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands.

• Whether the grounds of appeal raised genuine questions of law or were merely challenges to the quantum of compensation, which is generally prohibited under Section 49(1) of the LAA.
• Whether Paragraph 1(1A) of the First Schedule of the LAA mandates the Court to prefer a sales comparable located within the immediate vicinity over a more reliable comparable located in a different locality.
• Whether the High Court erred in law by rejecting a single sales comparable as an "outlier" and whether the judge failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the government assessor’s opinion over the private assessors’ opinions.

• The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the selection and weighting of sales comparables are matters of fact and valuation methodology rather than appealable questions of law under the narrow remit of Section 49(1).
• The Court clarified that the phrase "regard may be had" in Paragraph 1(1A) of the First Schedule is permissive, meaning geographical proximity is a factor to be considered but does not create an absolute statutory requirement to prefer local comparables over more reliable distant ones.
• The Court found that the High Court had sufficiently discharged its duty to provide reasons by explaining the methodology used to arrive at the valuation and why the appellants' preferred comparable was rejected as an unreliable outlier.