Tan Wei Mia & Ors v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak

Appellant(s):

• Tan Wei Mia
• Tan Wai Cheong
• Tan Boon Chit

Respondent(s): Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak

• YA Datuk Supang Lian
• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab

• The case originated from land reference proceedings concerning the compulsory acquisition of parts of three plots of land (the Scheduled Lands) for the construction of the Middle Ring Road II, with the declaration of acquisition published in February 1994.
• The original landowner objected to the Land Administrator's award, which valued the lands as agricultural, initiating a protracted legal battle over compensation.
• The proceedings involved multiple rehearings and appeals, including a Court of Appeal declaration in 2016 that two of the Scheduled Lands were categorized as "building" land, leading to the setting aside of a previous consent order and further remittals for reassessment of compensation.

• Whether the High Court's determination of specific questions of law during land reference proceedings was an appealable "decision" under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
• Whether the principle of *res judicata* or issue estoppel applied to previous High Court findings that the Scheduled Lands were zoned as "building commercial", given that the Court of Appeal had set aside the entirety of those earlier High Court decisions and remitted the case for rehearing.
• Whether the Scheduled Lands should be valued as commercial based on their actual and existing land use as of the valuation date, particularly in the absence of a gazetted local plan or official zoning.

• The Court held that the High Court's determination of the questions of law was an appealable decision, possessing an element of finality as it directly impacted the valuation and the appellants' rights in the land reference proceedings.
• The Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the doctrine of *res judicata* did not apply to the issue of land use category; as the appellants had appealed against the entirety of the previous High Court decisions which were subsequently set aside, all findings within those decisions, including on land use, ceased to be binding.
• The Court also affirmed the High Court's decision that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Scheduled Lands' actual and existing use as of the valuation date was for "building commercial" purposes, thus rendering the questions on comparable transactions (Q3) moot.