Petaling Rubber Estate vs CLR Kedah


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Petaling Rubber Estate vs CLR Kedah

  2. 2. ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE LAND ACQUISITION Sec 3(e) First of the Schedule Sales First of LAA –evidence Schedule potential of LAA value
  3. 3. FACT OF THE CASEKedah has acquired 20 acres of land The northern area of the scheduled landbelonging to the Petaling Rubber Estate lies under the boundary of KawasanLtd. be known as Ladang Victoria Majlis Kerajaan Tempatan Kulim andDivision. categorised as agriculuture land “KEBUN GETAH”,Scheduled land comprises several lots– 2,890.37 acres. while the southern that fell outside the boundary is zoned as “KAWASANLot 805 - 978.88 acres. HIJAU”. The date of valuation is the date of “Tapak Untuk Rancangan Perumahan gazette declaration under Sec 8 of LAA Awam Kos Rendah di Padang Serai 1960, as no declaration notification Daerah Kulim.” under sec 4 gazetted. 7 May 1981 The private surveyor via the private valuation report mentioned the fair market value of the scheduled landAn enquiry was held by the Collector of should be RM20,000 per acre and the Land Revenue(14 DEC 1981) and an total amount for the 20 acres shouldaward in the sum of RM150,000 (8 FEB come to RM400,000. In addition, he 1982) was made, which worked out to was of the opinion that a further sum of RM7,500 per acre. RM10,600 being chartered surveyors fees should be awarded as incidental costs.
  4. 4. HELD The value of comparable land should be higher than schedule land because the age of trees for lot comparable is more productive or yield. The rubber tree of schedule land is old and produce lower yield. It is not unfair to the general increaseOVERSIMPLIED GENERAL INCREASE OF of 20% to 30% of the prices of rubber lands in RUBBER’S PRODUCTION 1980 without regard to the element of the yield from each holding and arbitrarily selected the midpoint of the percentage of the general increase to arrive at 25% to which he added a further 10% for the time lapse of 1½ years to reach the final percentage of increase by 35%. The private valuer should know the basis of the evidence for determining the potential value. There are few basis of evidence such as general development, housing development at REMOTE POTENTIAL surrounding the acquired land, approved plan and evidence of demand. The surrounding area of the schedule land has 10 units of shophouse and 20 units of residential but out skirt from town. *Khoo Peng Loong & ors v Supritendent
  5. 5. HELDThus, the fair market value is as the following:Based on comparables Lot 264 & 265 RM 10,900 pac % Location to nearest town 10 Road frontage 20 Encumbrances by S214A of National Land (20) Code TOTAL ADJUSTMENT 10 The total amount after making appropriate RM10,900 + adjustment 10% RM 11,990 per acre.
  6. 6. PRINCIPLE OF THE JUDGMENT date of valuation Para1(1) of 1st Schedule of LAA. Potential Value a) Notification date under Sec 4, where declaration under sec 8 made within 12 *Bukit Rajah Rubber Co. Ltd V. CLR KLang mths *Superitendant of Land and Surveys V. Aik b) Date of section 8 Hoe Co Ltd.*New Serendah Rubber Co. Ltd V. CLR KL * Ng Bee & Anor V. CLR Kuala Pilah. Sec 3(e) of 1st schedule of LAA.Ng Tiou Hong V. CLR Gombak Principle. Matters not to be considered in derivingValue of the scheduled land after making compensation. necessary adjustments. - Any increase to the value of the landPrior to Part 1(1B) of 1st Schedule of LAA acquired likely to accrue from the use to 1960. which it will be put when acquired.
  7. 7. COMMENT Value of the landThe compensation of must take potential value is based on evidence consideration the features of the partgeneral development, land to be acquired inhousing scheme and schedule land. demand * Superintendent of*Khoo Peng Loong & lands and surveys vors v Supritendent of Aik hoe Co ltd Land and Survey
  8. 8. REFERENCES1. Land Acquisition Act 1960.2. Current Law Journal, Petaling Rubber Estates Ltd. Vs. Collector of Land Revenue Kedah (1989) 2 CLJ3. Jauriah Idrus, “Land Acquisition : FAQs”, Director of Department of Lands and Mines, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment4. Meena, L. R. “Fair Compensation” The Sun, (9 May, 2011) 11050910.pdf