Nabisah Binti Abdul Hamid & Anor v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Langat

Appellant(s): Nabisah Binti Abdul Hamid (PM 6413)

Respondent(s): Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Langat

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

• Two appeals were heard together concerning land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA) for lands in Mukim Tanjung Dua Belas, Kuala Langat.
• The High Court, in both land reference proceedings, partially allowed the objections by increasing the market value of the acquired lands from RM180.00 to RM190.00 per square metre.
• The appellants, being the landowners, were dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court and appealed the decisions.

• Whether the High Court erred in law by preferring a sales comparable located outside the vicinity of the scheduled land over one within the vicinity, contrary to Paragraph 1(1A) of the First Schedule of the LAA.
• Whether the High Court erred in law by rejecting a single comparable as an outlier for lacking support from other sales comparables, and if it applied inconsistent standards in doing so.
• Whether the High Court was required to provide explicit reasons for preferring the opinion of one assessor over another when there was a disagreement in valuation.

• The Court affirmed that appeals under s. 49(1) of the LAA are permissible only on questions of law, not merely on the amount of compensation, as clarified by Federal Court precedents.
• The Court held that the High Court's preference for a comparable outside the vicinity (with appropriate adjustments) and its rejection of a single comparable as an unreliable outlier were findings of fact and application of valuation principles, not errors of law.
• The Court found that the High Court implicitly provided reasons for its valuation by detailing its methodology and findings, which aligned with the government assessor's approach, thereby satisfying the requirement to give reasons.
• Both appeals were dismissed with costs, as the appellants failed to demonstrate any genuine questions of law warranting the Court's intervention.