Sin Hee Yang Property Management Sdn. Bhd. v Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia & Anor

Appellant(s): Sin Hee Yang Property Management Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

• Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia
• Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang

• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar
• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• YA Datuk Ismail Bin Brahim

• The appellant owned land intended for a 74-unit housing development, but the State Authority acquired a 252-square-meter portion for a highway project, forcing the appellant to downsize the project to 55 units.
• The Land Administrator awarded RM6,129,342.00 in compensation, which included substantial sums for loss of profit, business disturbance, and interest on a development loan.
• On land reference, the High Court significantly reduced the award by rejecting the claims for loss of profit and interest, finding the land was vacant at the time of acquisition and that such items were not compensable under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA).

• Whether the first respondent’s land reference was filed within the six-week statutory period under Section 38 of the LAA and whether the appellant was estopped from challenging the validity of the reference.
• Whether the High Court breached Section 40C of the LAA by failing to record or provide the written opinions of the assessors to the parties, and the retrospective applicability of the Federal Court’s decision in *Tegas Sejati*.
• Whether the appellant’s challenges regarding market value, loss of profit, and incidental development costs constituted "questions of law" appealable under the proviso to Section 49(1) of the LAA.

• The Court held that the first respondent’s reference was filed within the six-week limit and the appellant was estopped from challenging its validity as it had failed to appeal the High Court’s earlier dismissal of its striking-out application.
• The Court distinguished *Tegas Sejati*, ruling that its requirements for disclosing assessors' opinions apply prospectively; as the High Court decision predated that judgment and the appellant never requested the opinions, no injustice occurred.
• The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that findings on market value are questions of fact and that loss of profit cannot be incorporated into market value under the First Schedule of the LAA where no construction works had commenced on the land.