Kaochern Corporation Sdn. Bhd. v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

Appellant(s): Kaochern Corporation Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent(s): Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan

• The appellant owned two parcels of land that were partially acquired for a highway project; the concessionaire took physical possession of the scheduled lands in February 2017, while the respondent only issued the formal notice of award (Form H) in December 2021.
• The respondent awarded compensation for the market value and a rental sum for the early entry but expressly rejected the appellant's claim for injurious affection to the remaining land, asserting it lacked merit.
• On a land reference, the High Court maintained the market value, replaced the rental award with injurious affection compensation, and ordered late payment charges to run from the date of formal possession (Form K) at a rate of 5% per annum.

• Whether late payment charges under section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA 1960) are mandatory and should be calculated from the date of actual physical possession or the date of formal possession (Form K).
• Whether compensation for injurious affection, which was considered and rejected by the respondent but subsequently granted by the High Court, constitutes an "excess" under section 48 of the LAA 1960.
• Whether the computation of time for late payment charges on an "excess" award under section 48 runs from the date of physical possession by a third party or the date of formal possession by the respondent.

• The Court allowed the appeal in part, ruling that mandatory late payment charges under section 32 apply to the primary compensation from the date of physical possession (3.2.2017) until payment, as physical entry occurred prior to the 2017 LAA amendments.
• The Court held that if the respondent considers and rejects a specific head of claim, the original award is deemed "incomplete" but still an award; therefore, any subsequent grant by the High Court for that head is "in excess" of the respondent’s award under section 48.
• The Court affirmed that for "excess" compensation under section 48, late payment charges are discretionary and must be calculated from the date of formal possession (Form K) rather than the date of physical possession, following the principle of *stare decisis* in *Amitabha Guha*.