MESYUARAT PEMBENTANGAN KERTAS PENYELIDIKAN JABATAN BIL. 3/ DISEMBER 2009 DEWAN NUSANTARA, MENARA SRI SAUJANA INSPEN KERTAS PENYELIDIKAN

Transcription

1 MESYUARAT PEMBENTANGAN KERTAS PENYELIDIKAN JABATAN BIL. 3/ DISEMBER 2009 DEWAN NUSANTARA, MENARA SRI SAUJANA INSPEN KERTAS PENYELIDIKAN KAJIAN TERHADAP KEPUTUSAN KES MAHKAMAH BERKAITAN PRINSIP DAN PENENTUAN PAMPASAN DIBAWAH PARA (2), JADUAL PERTAMA AKTA PENGAMBILAN TANAH 1960 Disediakan oleh: Sharmila Shafie (INSPEN) Mohd Haris Yeop (JPPH Perak) Jabatan Penilaian Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia

2 KAJIAN TERHADAP KEPUTUSAN KES MAHKAMAH BERKAITAN PRINSIP DAN PENENTUAN PAMPASAN DIBAWAH PARA (2), JADUAL PERTAMA AKTA PENGAMBILAN TANAH 1960 Disediakan oleh: Sharmila Shafie (INSPEN) Mohd Haris Yeop (JPPH Perak) 1.0 BAB 1 : PENGENALAN 1.1 Latar Belakang Kajian Pihak Berkuasa Negeri (PBN) melalui peruntukan undang-undang boleh memperolehi tanah berimilik bagi maksud pembangunan yang membawa manafaat kepada awam. Perkara (13) 1 mengatakan tiada seorang pun boleh dilucutkan hartanya kecuali mengikut undang-undang dan tiada sesuatu undangundang pun boleh membuat peruntukan bagi mengambil atau menggunakan hartaharta dengan paksa dengan tiada pampasan yang mencukupi. Hakim Y.A Yeop Sani di dalam kes S. Kulasingam & Anor v. Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory & Ors (MLJ,1982) menafsirkan Perkara 13 sebagai satu jaminan bahawa seseorang itu tidak boleh dinafikan hak memiliki harta semata-mata atas kuasa eksekutif. Implikasinya harta persendirian boleh diambil secara paksa oleh PBN dengan menggunakan kuasa yang diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang. Pengambilan harta persendirian tidak boleh dilakukan kecuali dengan pampasan yang secukupnya. Rasional bagi pengambilan tanah adalah untuk kepentingan awam lebih diutamakan. Di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) telah mengariskan item-item pampasan yang boleh dibenarkan di dalam membuat tuntutan dan kebanyakannya telah dirujuk ke mahkamah. Oleh itu adalah difikirkan perlu diwujudkan sumber rujukan kepada penilai untuk mengkaji jenisjenis tuntutan tersebut. 1 Perlembagaan Persekutuan 1

3 1.2 Penyataan Masalah Merujuk kepada Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bilangan PT/2/ pihak Ibu Pejabat, Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) mendapati bilangan kes pengambilan tanah yang dirujuk ke mahkamah semakin meningkat. Disamping itu, isu-isu yang dibangkitkan semakin rumit. Antaranya adalah seperti isu nilai pasaran, isu kecederaan dan kerosakan dan isu mengenai pampasan lain. Bagi memastikan kes penilaian pengambilan tanah yang dirujuk ke mahkamah dikendalikan dengan sempurna, keputusan kes mahkamah terdahulu perlulah digunapakai sebagai sumber rujukan. 1.3 Matlamat Kajian Matlamat utama kajian ini adalah untuk mengumpul keputusan mahkamah terhadap kes pengambilan tanah yang telah dirujuk ke mahkamah. Pengumpulan keputusan kes ini adalah penting untuk mengkaji serta menyemak setiap aspek, perkara dan isu yang berkaitan dengan tuntutan selaras dengan peruntukan Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960). 1.4 Objektif Kajian Objektif kajian yang hendak dicapai melalui kertas kajian ini adalah untuk mengkaji keputusan kes pengambilan tanah yang dirujuk ke mahkamah berkaitan dengan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960). 1.5 Soalan Penyelidikan Bagi menjalankan kajian ini, persoalan penyelidikan adalah seperti berikut:- a. Apakah isu-isu tuntutan pampasan yang sering dibangkitkan semasa kes pengambilan tanah dirujuk ke mahmakah? b. Apakah keputusan kepada isu-isu tuntutan pampasan tersebut yang telah diputuskan oleh mahkamah? 2 Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bil PT/2/2008 -Rujukan Kes Pengambilan Tanah Ke Mahkamah 2

4 c. Apakah sumber yang dijadikan rujukan untuk menyelesaikan isu-isu tuntutan pampasan yang dibangkitkan? 1.6 Kepentingan Kajian Kepentingan kajian ini diharapkan dapat membantu dan memberi panduan kepada pegawai yang mengendalikan kes pengambilan tanah mengenai kes-kes yang telah diputuskan oleh mahkamah berkaitan isu-isu pampasan tertentu. 1.7 Skop Kajian Kajian ini akan hanya melibatkan kes pengambilan tanah yang mana telah dirujukan ke mahkamah dan mahkamah telah memberikan keputusan keatas kes tersebut berdasarkan kepada isu-isu berkaitan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan dibawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960). 1.8 Limitasi Kajian Antara limitasi kajian yang dikenalpasti adalah seperti berikut:- a. Kajian ini adalah merupakan kajian kualitatif sahaja. Oleh itu analisa terhadap keputusan kes mahkamah akan dijadikan sampel kajian ini. b. Kajian ini adalah hanya berkaitan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan berdasarkan peruntukan Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960). 1.9 Organisasi Kajian Secara ringkas kajian ini akan terbahagi kepada 5 (lima) bab utama iaitu: BAB 1 - Pengenalan Bab ini akan menyentuh secara kasar tentang pengenalan, pernyataan masalah, matlamat kajian, objektif dan soalan penyelidikan, kepentingan kajian, skop dan limitasi BAB 2 - Ulasan Literatur 3

5 Bab ini mengandungi ulasan, bacaan, terma dan istilah yang berkaitan dengan isu-isu pengambilan tanah di bawah peruntukan Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah. (1960) BAB 3 - Metodologi dan Analisa Kajian Bab ini akan membincangkan bagaimana kajian yang berdasarkan pendekatan kualitatif melalui analisis kandungan (content analysis) dijalankan. Ini adalah dengan membuat analisa terhadap keputusan keskes mahkamah yang telah diputuskan. Sumber ini diperolehi daripada MLJ, internet, buku-buku, jurnal dan bahan-bahan ilmiah yang lain BAB 4 - Penemuan Kajian Keputusan kes-kes mahkamah yang diperolehi akan dianalisa berdasarkan fakta kes, isu-isu tuntutan pampasan di bawah Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) dan keputusan mahkamah BAB 5 - Cadangan Bab akhir ini akan merumuskan analisa keatas keputusan kes-kes mahkamah yang boleh digunapakai sebagai penambahbaikan terhadap item-item yang dicadangkan bagi pampasan pengambilan tanah terutamanya yang melibatkan Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) dan sebagai rujukan untuk mengukuhkan bukti keatas pelarasan yang dibuat dalam menentukan Nilai Pasaran. 4

6 2.0 BAB 2 : KAJIAN LITERATUR 2.1 Definisi Beberapa definisi dan terma akan dijelaskan dalam kajian ini yang melibatkan isu-isu dan prinsip-prinsip di dalam penentuan pampasan di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960). Penilaian adalah satu proses dalam menetapkan nilai berdasarkan maksud-maksud tertentu keatas suatu hartanah. Bagi pengambilan tanah, penilaian dijalankan bagi membolehkan pihak berkepentingan memperolehi pampasan yang berpatutan selain kerosakan dan kerugian yang terpaksa ditanggung akibat pengambilan tersebut Definisi Pengambilan Tanah Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) mendefinasikan pengambilan tanah sebagai satu tindakan yang diambil oleh PBN untuk mengambilbalik tanah yang telah diberimilik kepada orang perseorangan, badan atau perbadanan untuk maksud tujuan awam. Mengikut kes Hamabai Framjee Petit vs Secretary of State 4, Lordship of Privy Council telah menerima definisi tujuan awam seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Hakim Bachelor J:- General definition are, I think rather to be avoided where the avoidance is possible, and I no attempt to define precisely the extent of phrase public purpose in the lease; it is enough to say that, in my opinion the phrase, whatever else it may mean, must include a purpose that is, an objection or aim, in which the 3 Ismail, et al: All Indian Report 1914: pg (20) 5

7 general interest of community, as opposed the particular interest of individuals, is directly and vital concerned. Manakala di dalam kes S. Kulaisinggan & Anor vs Commission of Land, Faderal Territory & Ors (Supra) 5, Hakim Hashim Yeop A. Sani telah menyatakan The expression public purpose is incapable of precise definition. No one in fact has attemped to define is successfully. What all the textbook has done is to suggest the test to apply in determining whether a purpose is a public purpose. Various test have been suggested. But in my opinion, it is still best to employ the simple commonsense test, is that is, to see whether the purpose serves the general interest of the community Peranan Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) di dalam kes-kes pengambilan tanah adalah memberikan khidmat nasihat di dalam menentukan nilai pampasan kepada pihak Kementerian dan Jabatan, Badan Berkanun, Kerajaan Negeri dan Kerajaan Tempatan. Jika terdapat bantahan keatas pampasan yang telah diputuskan oleh Pentadbir Tanah dan seterusnya dirujuk ke mahkamah Pegawai Penilaian mungkin akan dipanggil ke mahkamah sebagai saksi pakar untuk mepertahankan nilainya. Pegawai Penilaian juga akan dilantik sebagai pengapit (assessor) untuk membantu hakim di dalam membuat keputusan bagi menentukan pampasan yang berpatutan dan munasabah. Berdasarkan kes Ng Tiou Hons vs Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak (1984) 6 anggaran nilaian yang dibuat oleh expert (penilai) adalah merupakan suatu keterangan (evidence) yang tidak diragui, tetapi pertimbangan yang berlebihan sepatutnya tidak diberi kepadanya melainkan ianya disokong oleh atau bersamaan dengan keterangan lain. 5 Malayan Law Journal (MLJ) 6 MLJ 35 6

8 Perundangan terawal pengambilan tanah di Malaysia bermula sejak zaman Inggeris menjajah negara ini melalui Enakmen Negeri-Negeri Malayu Bersekutu Bil. 20 Tahun Setelah beberapa kajian semula dijalankan, perundangan terdahulu ini dikenali sebagai Enakmen Pengambilan Tanah. 8 Selepas negara mencapai kemerdekaan pada 1957, kerajaan mencadangkan bahawa satu sistem perundangan berkaitan pengambilan tanah perlu diwujudkan. Sejarah Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) ini bermula apabila Timbalan Perdana Menteri YAB Tun Abdul Razak Bin Hussin memberi pandangan dan membentangkan rang undang-undang di Dewan Rakyat pada 12 September Akta ini telah melalui beberapa proses pindaan sejak mula ia berkuatkuasa. Pada tahun 1992, Akta ini telah disemak semula dan ia dikenali sebagai Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, Akta Definasi Nilai Pasaran Nilai pasaran adalah suatu kepentingan harta tanah yang diterbitkan dalam bentuk wang ringgit dengan menjadikan masa sebagai elemen yang penting dan juga kesediaan seseorang pembeli untuk membeli sesuatu harta tanah tersebut. 10 Konsep nilai seperti yang ditafsirkan oleh American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers sebagaimana yang dipersetujui Mahkamah Amerika Syarikat, iaitu harga tertinggi yang mampu dihasilkan oleh harta tanah jika dijual di pasaran terbuka dengan suatu masa yang munasabah diperuntukkan dalam mencari pembeli berpotensi yang juga pembeli yang munasabah dengan tahap pengetahuan berkenaan kegunaan sebenar tanah dan juga hak keatas tanah tersebut Federal Malay State Enactment 8 Enakmen Pengambilan Tanah (FMS Cap 140) 9 The Land Acquisitions Bill 10 Ismail,et al : Norhiaty :

9 Berdasarkan Manual Valuation Standards yang dikeluarkan oleh Lembaga Penilai Pentaksir dan Agen Harta Tanah, nilai pasaran merupakan amaun yang dianggarkan untuk pertukaran sesuatu aset pada tarikh nilaian bagi sesuatu transaksi yang tulen, antara penjual yang rela dan pembeli yang rela setelah aset berkenaan dipasarkan di pasaran terbuka dalam tempoh yang berpatutan di mana semua pihak telah bertindak dengan berpengetahuan, bijak dan tanpa paksaan. A.F. Millington (1982) memberi takrif penilaian sebagai suatu seni dan sains dalam menganggarkan nilai bagi sesuatu maksud yang tertentu terhadap kepentingan harta tanah pada suatu tempoh tertentu setelah mengambil kira sifatsifat harta tanah dan faktor-faktor ekonomi, pasaran dan pelaburan alternatif. Manakala seni ialah pembentukan pendapat terhadap nilai yang dilakukan oleh penilai manakala sains pula ialah kefahaman atau kaedah dalam memberi pendapat tentang sesuatu. 2.4 Prinsip Penentuan Pampasan Dalam konteks penilaian pengambilan tanah ianya didefinasikan sebagai satu prinsip yang perlu diikuti adalah sesuatu jumlah wang yang akan diperolehi oleh pemilik harta sekiranya tanah tersebut dijual di pasaran terbuka dan juga mengambilkira kerugian-kerugian yang timbul akibat pengambilan tersebut. 12 Terma prinsip penentuan pampasan ini tidak dinyatakan secara jelas di dalam sistem perundangan tetapi terma ini hanya akan diperolehi daripada kajian terdahulu di mana suatu jumlah wang perlu dibayar kepada pemilik yang diambil balik tanahnya. 13 Prinsip penentuan pampasan berdasarkan kepada suatu kes mahkamah di England iaitu Ricket vs Metropolitan Rail Co (1867), di mana pampasan adalah sesuatu jumlah yang diperlukan untuk meletakkan seseorang pemilik dalam keadaan sepertimana harta tanahnya tidak diambil. Prinsip ini dikatakan sebagai Prinsip Kesetaraan Anuar & Nasir : (Rowan-Robinsonson & Brand : 1995 dan Brown : 1991). 14 Principle of Acquivalence: (Jain, Xavier & Usilappan : 1997), (Teo & Khaw : 1995) dan (Cruden : 1986) 8

10 Kajian Anuar & Nasir (2006) di mana telah mengemukakan sebanyak 90 sampel soalselidik kepada penilai-penilai yang terlibat di dalam kes pengambilan tanah. Didapati bahawa terdapat persetujuan umum tentang kepentingan nilai pasaran sepertimana di dalam Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) namun tidak dinyatakan secara terperinci apakah faktor-faktor lain yang boleh dipertimbangkan sebagai penentuan pampasan. Berdasarkan kepada Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) menyatakan bahawa di dalam penentuan pampasan yang akan diberikan bagi mana-mana tanah yang dijadualkan akan diambil hendaklah mengambilkira perkara-perkara berikut:- a) Nilai pasaran sepertimana diperuntukkan di bawah Seksyen 1, Jadual Pertama. 15 b) Apa-apa kenaikan pada nilai tanah yang lain yang mungkin terakru kepada tanah-tanah lain yang dimiliki oleh orang yang berkepentingan disebabkan penggunaan kepada tanah yang diambil; c) Kerosakan, jika ada yang ditanggung atau mungkin ditanggung oleh orang yang berkepentingan disebabkan oleh pemisahan tanah yang diambil itu daripada tanah yang lain; d) Kerosakan jika ada, yang ditanggung atau mungkin ditanggung oleh orang yang berkepentingan disebabkan oleh pengambilan itu telah menyebabkan kesan mudarat pada hartanya yang lain; e) Jika disebabkan pengambilan, ia terpaksa berpindah rumah atau tempat perniagaannya, perbelanjaan yang berkaitan yang ditanggung olehnya: dan f) Di mana hanya sebahagian daripada tanah telah diambil, mana-mana akujanji oleh pihak berkuasa untuk membina jalan, parit, tembok, pagar atau lain-lain kemudahan yang memberi munafaat kepada bahagian tanah yang diambil, dengan syarat bahawa akujanji itu jelas dan dikuatkuasakan. 15 Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) 9

11 Pampasan keatas kerosakan kekal yang berlaku akibat pengambilan tanah telah dibincangkan dengan jelasnya di dalam kes Pemungut Hasil Tanah vs Looi Lam di mana tuntutan kerosakan kekal perlu dibuat bersekali dengan tuntutan nilai pasaran mengikut Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) dan semasa siasatan dijalankan dan bukannya dijalankan secara berasingan. Kajian oleh William Britton, Keith Davies & Tony Johnson (1989) telah mengenalpasti item-item pampasan selain dari nilai tanah. Antaranya adalah seperti berikut:- a) Pecah pisah (severence). b) Kerosakan kekal (injurious affection). c) Kecederaan lain yang mungkin timbul (disturbance) seperti:- i) Kacauganggu dan kehilangan hak sebagai pemilik atau penyewa - Termasuk bayaran akibat jualan stok secara paksa. - Kos pengakutan dan perpindahan. - Kos lain yang timbul daripada perpindahan. - Goodwill. ii) Kerosakan semasa tempoh pembinaan. d) Kerja-kerja akomodasi. e) Gantian sewaan. Manakala Fricke (1982) juga telah mengkaji item-item kacauganggu lain sepertimana berikut:- a) Kos perpindahan, termasuk insuran. b) Susutnilai atau kerosakan yang mungkin timbul semasa perpindahan stok, loji dan jentera, peralatan dan barangan perniagaan akibat pengambilan tanah. c) Pemasangan semula mesin jentera. d) Nilai barangan tidak alih. 10

12 e) Kos insiden lain selepas pengambilan seperti pengiklanan, perubahan alamat dan gantian peralatan perniagaan. f) Kehilangan pendapatan sepanjang tempoh perpindahan dan juga di masa memulakan perniagaan dilokasi baru. g) Kerugian tanaman yang sedang membesar tetapi tidak dimasukkan didalam nilai tanah. h) Kerugian akibat jualan paksa stok, loji jentera, peralatan dan barangan perniagaan. i) Kos perberhentian pekerja. j) Kos pemyimpanan barang. k) Kos mengoperasikan dua premis pada satu masa. l) Kos pengubahsuaian bangunan perniagaan baru. m) Sewa dan cukai yang perlu dibayar di premis baru. n) Peningkatan kos operasi di premis baru. o) Peningkatan kos pengakutan dan masa perjalanan. p) Kerugian semasa membuat tuntutan di dalam mencari premis baru dan semasa berpindah. q) Kos tambahan atas minyak dan petrol. r) Kos-kos konsultansi lain yang terlibat. s) Bayaran ejen di dalam perkhidmatan memcari premis baru. t) Kos menyelesaikan pinjaman lama dan mendapatkan pinjaman baru. u) Kos perundangan dan duti setem atas pembelian premis alternatif. Secara kesimpulannya kajian-kajian yang telah dinyatakan di atas adalah bertepatan dengan peruntukan perundangan yang telah dipraktiskan selama ini sebagaimana digariskan di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) iaitu :- * Perkara 2 (a) - Nilai pasaran tanah dan bangunan * Perkara 2 (b) Naik nilai (betterment) * Perkara 2 (c) - Pecah pisah (severance) * Perkara 2 (d) - Kerosakan kekal (injurious affection) * Perkara 2 (e) - Kacauganggu (disturbance) 11

13 * Perkara 2 (f) - Kerja-kerja akomodasi (gantian semula) Peruntukan di dalam Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) telah menyediakan ruang yang cukup tentang item-item tuntutan pampasan yang dibolehkan di dalam membuat tuntutan. Namun begitu bagaimanakah setiap tuntutan itu dipenuhi dan apakah terma rujukan yang telah digunapakai oleh hakim yang membuat keputusan? Adakah berdasarkan kes-kes mahmakah yang telah diputuskan sebelum ini diambilkira? Penelitian keatas keputusan kes-kes mahkamah berkaitan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan di bawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960) akan menjawap persoalan tersebut. 12

14 3.0 BAB 3 : METODOLOGI KAJIAN 3.1 Pendekatan Kajian Pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan kualitatif melalui analisis kandungan (content analysis). Pendekatan analisis kandungan adalah dengan membuat analisa keputusan mahkamah yang berkaitan kes pengambilan tanah yang telah dirujuk ke mahkamah dan keputusan telah diberikan. Bagi mencapai tujuan ini, penyelidik akan membincangkan isu-isu pampasan yang dibangkitkan serta mengulas keputusan mahkamah terhadap isu-isu tersebut. Penyelidik juga akan mengenalpasti, menganalisa, makna dan hubungan antara perkataan dan konsep dan akan cuba mengaitkannya dengan objektif yang hendak dicapai. Untuk menjalankan penyelidikan ini, penyelidik akan membahagikan setiap kes mahkamah ini kepada beberapa bahagaian. Antaranya adalah seperti berikut:- i) Fakta Kes ii) Masalah/ Isu iii) Keputusan mahkamah Rasional content analysis digunapakai dalam kajian ini adalah kerana terdapat pelbagai maklumat dalam setiap kes yang dirujuk. Dengan menggunakan borang semakan data, penyelidik akan dapat membuat catatan dan panduan di dalam menentukan apakah maklumat-maklumat yang ingin diperolehi daripada setiap sampel kajian. Dengan cara ini setiap item tuntutan boleh dikenalpasti diperingkat awal lagi. Ini akan memudahkan proses analisa data dijalankan. 3.2 Persempelan Persempelan kajian ini adalah merupakan kes-kes mahkamah yang telah dirujuk dan telah digunapakai di dalam penentuan pampasan. Bilangan persampelan adalah tidak terhad dan bergantung kepada isu-isu pampasan dan fakta kes. 13

15 3.3 Penemuan Kajian dan Laporan Penemuan kajian akan diterjemahkan di dalam bentuk laporan. Analisis terperinci setiap isu-isu pampasan akan dijalankan bagi menjawab objektif kajian iaitu mengkaji keputusan mahkamah berkaitan prinsip dan penentuan pampasan dibawah Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah (1960). 14

16 4.0 BAB 4 : RUJUKAN KES MAHKAMAH 4.1 Kes Mahkamah Berkaitan Nilai Pasaran : Pekara 2 (a), Para 2, Jadual Pertama, Akta Pengambilan Tanah Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd lwn Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kinta [2004] 6 MLJ 157, Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh Rujukan Tanah No , Mokhtar Sidin MHR Fakta Kes: Kadar nilai pasaran untuk pampasan samada pampasan yang diberi lebih rendah daripada kadar pasaran semasa. Isu : Pemohon di dalam kes ini adalah pemilik 2 lot tanah yang telah diwartakan untuk tujuan pengambilan sepenuhnya bagi membangunkan satu kawasan perumahan dan pusat komersial pada 21 Januari Satu plot tanah ditanami dengan pokok getah tua dan tidak dijaga atau ditoreh, manakala satu lagi plot terdapat 4 unit rumah teres buruk yang tidak didiami serta bangunan untuk memproses susu getah yang juga telah usang. Semasa pengambilan balik tidak ada permohonan dibuat untuk memajukan tanah. Siasatan telah dijalankan oleh responden di- mana responden telah memberikan pampasan pada kadar RM90,000 sehektar untuk Lot manakala bagi Lot pula pampasan yang telah diberikan oleh responden adalah RM215,000 sehektar. Pemohon tidak berpuas hati dengan pampasan yang telah diberikan bagi Lot dan telah memohon rujukan dibuat ke mahmakah di atas alasan pampasan yang telah diberikan itu adalah rendah daripada kadar nilai pasaran semasa. 15

17 Keputusan Mahmakah : Diputuskan untuk menolak permohonan kerana tarikh untuk menentukan kadar nilai pasaran semasa tersebut bagi memberikan pampasan di atas pengambilan balik tanah terlibat adalah tarikh pengambilan ini diwartakan. Prinsip Pampasan : Berdasarkan kepada keterangan Mokhtar Sidin JCA, prinsip penetuan pampasan kepada kes pengambilan tanah terdapat di dalam Jadual Pertama kepada Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 (Akta 486) di mana dinyatakan bahawa pampasan hendaklah mengikut harga pasaran (market value) tanah tersebut semasa tanah itu digezetkan untuk diambil. Pengertian harga pasaran ini telah dihuraikan dengan panjang lebar di dalam kes Ng Tiou Hong vs Collector of Land Revenue Gombak [1984] 2 MLJ 35, iaitu satu keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan. Bagi tanah-tanah ladang pula, sebagaimana yang terdapat di dalam permohonan ini, beberapa fakta patut dipertimbangkan untuk mendapatkan harga pasaran itu. Perkara utama ialah perbandingan hendaklah dibuat dengan transaksi tanah-tanah ladang yang lain yang berlaku dikawasan tanah terlibat dan mempunyai kedudukan, rupabumi dan keadaan tanah yang sama Siah Brother Plantation Sdn Bhd lwn Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuantan [1993] 3 MLJ 51, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuantan Rujukan Tanah No Tahun 1986, Dato Lamin H Fakta Kes : Penentuan nilai pasaran perlu berasaskan kepada jualan perbandingan dengan mengambilkira pelbagai faktor seperti masa, saiz tanah, 16

18 kedudukan tanah, jenis tanaman dan bentuk rupabumi yang sama dengan tanah dijadualkan. Ini kerana jika tidak banyak pelarasan adalah lebih mudah, lebih munasabah dan lebih tepat perkiraan dapat dibuat untuk penentuan nilai pasaran. Isu : Pengambilan sebahagian tanah seluas ekar bagi Lot 2685 di Mukim Kuantan, Daerah Kuantan, Pahang. Luas tanah dijadualkan ekar dan merupakan satu daripada tiga lot tanah ladang yang bercantum dikenali sebagai Valentia Estete. Luas keseluruhan estate tersebut adalah 1, ekar. Pengambilan ini diwartakan pada 20 Jun Tujuan pengambilan adalah untuk penggunaan paip gas Petronas. Amaun pampasan yang diberikan oleh Pentadbir Tanah Kuantan, selepas siasatan adalah sebanyak RM8,900 seekar. Pihak perayu tidak berpuas hati dengan amaun pampasan nilai pasaran dimana memohon tanah dijadualkan itu dinilai berasaskan RM25,000 seekar. Keputusan Mahkamah : Di dalam alasan penghakimannya, hakim yang arif berpendapat bahawa ketiga-tiga perbandingan yang digunakan oleh pihak perayu adalah tidak sesuai untuk perbandingan kerana perbezaan saiz. Luas lot perbandingan yang digunakan adalah kurang daripada 50 ekar sedangkan luas tanah dijadualkan adalah ekar. Daripada aspek lokasi pula, penilai pihak responden telah mengemukakan jarak lot-lot perbandingan dengan tanah dijadualkan adalah hampir sama. Sebagai contoh Ladang Syarikat Kurnia Setia dan Ladang Jeram terletak 13km dariapda Pusat Bandar Kuantan, manakala tanah terjadual terletak 16km daripada Pusat Bandar Kuantan. 17

19 Disamping itu juga, ketiga-tiga tanah estet ini bermukakan jalan utama iaitu Ladang Syarikat Kurnia Setia ianya bermukakan Jalan Sungai Lembing/Kuantan Bypass, iaitu menghala Kuala Terengganu dan bagi Ladang Jeram, ianya bermukakan Kuantan Bypass. Tanah dijadualkan pula bermukakan Jalan Gambang. Lot-lot perbandingan dan tanah dijadualkan terletak berhampiran dengan kawasan pembangunan terancang dan menikmati kemudahan pengakutan. Lot-lot perpandingan ini bersempadanan dengan Bandar Indera Mahkota dan kawasan perindustrian Semambu, manakala tanah dijadualkan terletak berhampiran Bandar Jaya Gading. Lot-lot perbandingan pihak responden dan tanah dijadualkan telah dinilaikan dan diberi pampasan untuk tujuan yang sama iaitu pembinaan paip gas dan dari segi masa, tarikh pengambilan balik juga adalah sama, iaitu 20 Jun 1985, sedangkan lot perbandingan penilai perayu telah dijual beberapa tahun sebelum tarikh pengambilan balik dijadualkan oleh kerajaan iaitu sekitar tahun Prinsip Pampasan : Didalam kes hakim yang arif telah memberikan perhitungan yang sewajarnya kepada semua keadaan seperti kedudukan tanah dan kawasan sekiranya, saiz, rupabumi, jenis tanaman dan potensi pembangunan di dalam menentukan award pampasan Abdul Majid Bin Baba & Another vs Collector of Land Revenue, Jasin, High Court, Malacca, Land Reference No. 4 of 1980, Judge: Wan Yahya bin Pawan Teh, Date : 24/2/1981 Facts of the Case: A portion of land having an area of 26 poles ( acres) belonging to the plaintiff was acquired. The land was acquired by the government under 18

20 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 and was gazetted under G.N. No. 59, dated The Collector assessed the value of the acquired land at the rate of $7,000 per acre. Issue: The determination of market value. Court s Decision: The learned judge concluded that as at , the fair market value of the acquired land was $10,000 per acre. The Collector had to pay the difference of $3,000 per acre and interest on the excess of compensation awarded at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land, i.e, , to the date of payment of such excess A.K.A.C.T.V. Alagappa Chettiar vs Collector of Land Revenue, Kuala Lumpur, Federal Court, Kuala Lumpur, Reference: Civil Appeal No. X. 24 of 1967, Judges: Ong Hock Thye, Raja Azlan Shah, Pawan Ahmad Date: 20/02/1968, Keywords: Market value, principles of determining compensation, undivided share, potentiality of land. Facts of the Case: A parcel of land measuring acres (991, 730 square feet) was acquired by the Selangor State Government on for housing purposes. The appellant claimed $12.00 per sq. ft. The award by the Collector was at $3.00 per sq. ft. The High Court held that the Collector s award had no error or omission in the facts relied on or the inferences derived there from. The Collector had taken into account a number of factors but the most salient one was the previous sale of half-share of the land in question which took place only seven months before acquisition, the purchase price being $2.20 per sq. ft. The High Court upheld the government valuer s opinion that the earlier sale price of the land itself was the true keystone. 19

21 Court s Decision: In the opinion of the learned judge the fundamental rule is that the property under acquisition has been recently purchased, the price paid is prima facie the market value thereof. The appellant said that the previous sale price by itself afforded no absolute criterion. It could not be considered in isolation, without taking into account relevant circumstances under which that sale took place. The appellant claimed that the price at $2.20 per sq. ft. had been a bargain price well below market value as the seller. At the High Court, the learned judge:- a) discounted in toto the evidence of both Alagappa and Palaniappa that Devarayan sold at a disadvantage for personal reasons, b) rejected in to the appellant s valuation report on the ground that the prices paid on sales of lands not in the immediate vicinity of the land acquired were wholly irrelevant and must be disregarded. c) discussed the potentialities of the land but dismissed them, d) dismissed the appellant s contention that the sale price of an undivided partial interest in land afforded no true criterion of market value when assessing the price of the whole interest in the same land Bertam Consolidated Rubber Co. Ltd. vs Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara, Butterworth. High Court, Penang, Reference: Land Reference No , Judge: Edgar Joseph Jr, Date: 31/12/1988, Keyword: Fair market value, principles of determining compensation, Section 214A, National Land Code 1965, claim for severance and injurious affection. Facts of the Case: A piece of land measuring acres, which was part of Bertam Estate, was compulsorily acquired under Section 8 of Land Acquisition 20

22 Act 1960 on for a public road. Bertam Estate was approximately 5,000 acres and was planted with oil palms. At the inquiry on , the plaintiff claimed $1,314, based on their private valuer s report. On the Collector offered $639, as full compensation for the land acquired and for severance and injury. The plaintiff objected and referred the matter to Court. Issues: The matters raised for determination before the court were numerous:- a) What the fair market value of the land acquired was at the material date. b) What the appropriate sum to award for injurious affection was. c) With regards to surface drainage, whether the Court should require the State Government of Penang or the Drainage and Irrigation Department to give an undertaking or, in default, order an appropriate compensation award or make an appropriate order in lieu of the undertaking. d) What was the appropriate sum to award for consequential loss of crops, cost of new drains and fencing, cost of alternative road, insurance and recoupment of fees paid by the plaintiff. e) What other reliefs, if any should be awarded in favour to the plaintiff. MAIN MENU CONTENTS Court s Decisions: The three recognized methods of valuation under compulsory acquisition were:- a. the opinion of expert valuers; b. the price paid, within a reasonable time, in bona fide transactions of purchases of the land acquired, or of the lands adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages; and c. a certain number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profit from the lands acquired. 21

23 The most reliable guide in determining fair market value was evidence of sale of the same or similar land in the neighborhood, due allowance having been made for the particular circumstances of each cases. Matters that should be taken into account:- There is explicit statutory provision that in assessing compensation for severance and injurious affection, the Court must take into consideration not only damages actually sustained by the owner but also damages to be so sustained at the time of the Collector s taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, whether movable or immovable, in any other manner: para 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act. The Court awarded the following:- a. For the loss of the acquired land, the Collector s award of $322,272 was increased by 20% to $383, b. For severance and injurious affection:- cost of new drains $27,200 (or reimbursement of all expenses reasonably incurred and properly substantiated for the maintenance of the branch drains to ensure a smooth flow of water and waste in the main drains thus preventing any flooding and damage to crops on the remaining unacquired lands of Bertam Estate) cost of new fencing for the manager s bungalow $4,700 cost of new fencing for the rest of the Estate $13,728 c. Interest at 8% per annum on the sum awarded which was in excess of that awarded by the Collector from the date of possession, 21/2/1980, to the date of payment. d. Reimbursement of fees paid to valuer and engineer, provided that they had been reasonably incurred and properly substantiated. 22

24 4.1.6 Bukit Rajah Rubber Co. Ltd. vs Collector of Land Revenue, Klang High Court, Kuala Lumpur, Reference: Civil Application No. 2 of 1966, Judge: Raja Azlan Shah, Date: 12/10/1967, Keywords: Market value, potential value, method of valuation. Facts of the Case: The Collector s award was $2,400 per acre while the plaintiff claimed $8,400 per acre. Both the plaintiff s valuer and the Government valuer used the investment method in arriving at their valuations. The Government valuer first assessed the agricultural value using investment method and arrived at $1,400 per acre and added to this $1,000 per acre for the potentiality of the land. Issues: The determination of the basis market value under the Act. The likelihood of potential value to be considered together with existing value. The principle method of valuation to be adopted in arriving at a fair market value. Court s Decision: 1. Basic of market value:- the market value must be based on a rational enquiry of the value of the property to the owner which is an objective assessment of all the surrounding circumstances. Ordinarily, the objective assessment would be the price that an owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser with whom he has was bargaining for the sale of the land. 2. Potential value:- 23

25 The property must be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the acquisition but also its potential development value. In the light of these observations, I take the view that the proper method to arrive at a fair market value of the land acquired, taking all relevant considerations, is to assess its existing value with its inseparably essential element, i.e. its potential development value. 3. Method of valuation: - In my opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the method to be adopted for assessing the proper market value of the land acquired. In the last analysis each case must be considered in the light of its special features. 4. The learned judge however found that the sales cited by both parties were not fully comparable to the land acquired, but were accepted as a guide to the market conditions at the time of acquisition. The Court resorted to the investment method to arrive at the award of $4,022 per acre. This value was arrived at by taking into consideration the average annual yield per acre of the estate. A figure of 1,000 pounds was seen as reasonable. As the income was an immediate and assured income, the Court gave a capitalisation rate of 7 ½ % (remunerative rate) Chan Seow Choo, Lim Chee Lim Chee Seang, Lim Chee Beng, Lim Chee Cheng and Lim Chee Thuan vs Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Seberang Perai Tengah, Pulau Pinang, High Court, Pulau Pinang, Land Reference No , Judge: Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Sidin, Date: 17/2/1997, Keywords: Estate land, small-holdings, Section 214A of the National Land Code. Facts of the Case: The scheduled land, lot 722, Mukim 13, Derah Seberang Perai Tengah, was acquired for the purpose of development and industry under 24

26 Gazette Notification dated The lot had an area of acres and was an estate planted with oil palm and rubber trees. The Collector awarded RM40, per acre whilst the plaintiff claimed $2.00 per sq. ft. The plaintiff relied on 2 sales comprising of many small lots, the total areas of which were acres and acres. Issues: The plaintiff challenged the adequacy of the award. In determining the market value of estate land, what comparables might be used and what might not be used. Court s Decisions: 1. Comparables in vicinity to be used when valuing estate lands. Oleh kerana tanah terlibat adalah tanah ladang maka perbandingan yang sewajarnya hendaklah ke atas transaksi tanah-tanah ladang di sekitar kawasan itu atau berhampiran dengan tanah terlibat. 2. Sales of small-holdings could not be used to value estate lands. Sebagaimana yang telah saya nyatakan di atas penilai pemohon hanya mengemukakan dua perbandingan. Kedua-dua pebandingan ini merupakan tanah-tanah kecil dan bukannya tanah ladang. Saya telah menolak perbandingan-perbandingan ini dan juga perbandingan tanah-tanah lot kecil yang telah dikemukakan oleh penilai responden kerana jenis tanah yang berlainan. Sebagaimanan yang diketahui umum untuk penjualan tanah ladang ia memerlukan kelulusan di bawah sek. 214A Kanun Tanah Negara. MAIN MENU CONTENTS 3. The Court was of the opinion that the award made by the Collector was fair and adequate and concurred with the Collector s award. 25

27 4.1.8 Chin Kee Onn vs Collector of Land Revenue, Seremban, Supreme Court, Kuala Lumpur, Reference: No. 1 of 1958, Date: 18/3/1959, Keywords: Potential value, adequancy of market value. Facts of the Case: The said acquisition was for an extension to the Mantin Malay School. An area of 1 acre 0 rood 21.8 poles was acquired. The land was located approximately 2 chains to the south of the Seremban-Kuala Lumpur main road at the 11 ¼ milestone from Seremban. The Collector awarded $1, for the land, based on rubber land value. The appellant s licensed appraiser valued the land at $3, in view of building potential. Issues: Determination of market value as the compensation was deemed inadequate by the appellant. The appellant contended that the acquired land had building potential since it was located near the Mantin Town Board boundary which was now becoming a good residential area. Court s Decision: 1. The learned judge was of the opinion that the value of the land should not be valued on existing use but should also consider the likelihood of securing a charge of use in the future.. I am aware that the land is at present held under agricultural title but nevertheless the steady expansion of the Town Board area there would be no difficulty in securing a change of conditions. 2. The Court increased the award by $ in respect of the building potential of the land. Total award in respect of the land was $1,

28 4.1.9 Anggun Gemilang Sdn. Bhd. vs Pentadbir Daerah dan Tanah, Kuala Kangsar, High Court, Taiping, Land Reference No: (T), Judge: Hj. Mokhtar Hj. Sidin, Date: 12/1/1998, Keyword: Market Value, evidence of value, onus of proof. Facts of the Case: The owner had four pieces of land, Lots 530, 531, 1235 and 1311, which were acquired on for the development of an MIEL industrial area in the Kuala Kangsar Industrial Estate. The acquired land was an agricultural land and was undeveloped at the time of acquisition. The plaintiff had sent three applications for converting and developing the area including the acquired portion. But these applications were refused, except for lot 2343, which was approved. The Collector awarded compensation as follows:- Lot RM79, Lot RM90, Lot RM62, Lot RM82, Issue: The plaintiff contended that the award should be increased. Based on his experience as a developer land approved for industrial areas before the payments of premium and amalgamation and subdivision fees could fetch a value from RM80, to RM100, per acre. The acquired land had industrial potential. Court s Decision: The learned judge held that the principle for compensation should be based on the Land Acquisition Act 1960 whereby the compensation should be the market value. Market value was defined in the case of Ng Tiou Hong v. Collector of Land Revenue Gombak (1984). 27

29 The learned judge was satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector as it fulfilled the definition of market value. The learned judge held that the plaintiff did not provide evidence to show that the respondent s compensation was inadequate. The onus of proof on the adequacy of compensation rested on the plaintiff. There are of course other principles that have to be applied according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case along the lines provided by the First Schedule to the Act and as decided from time to time by the courts. We consider the following as main principles:- Firstly, market value means the compensation that must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expert to obtain from a willing purchaser. The elements of unwillingness or sentimental value on the part of the vendor to part with the land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy have to be disregarded and cannot be made a basic for increasing the market value. It must be treated on the willingness of both the vendor to sell and the purchaser to buy at the market price without the element of compulsion. Secondly, the market prices can be measured by a consideration of prices of sales of similar lands in the neighbour potentialities must be taken into account. The nature of the land and the use to which it is being put at the time of acquisition have to be taken into account together with the likelihood to which it is reasonably capable of being put to use in the future e.g. the possibility of it being put to use in the future for building or other developments. Fourthly, in considering the nature of the land regard must be given as to whether its locality is within or near developed area, its distance to or from a town, availability of access road to and within it or presence of a road 28

30 reserve indicating a likelihood of access to be constructed in the near future, expenses that would likely to be incurred in leveling the surface and the like. Fifthly, estimates of value by experts are undoubtedly, some evidence but too much weight should not be given unless it is supported by, or coincides with other evidence. The safest guide is evidence of sales of similar lands of similar quality or position in the locality at the prior to the time of acquisition. The prices paid for such sales can be used as comparables subject to making allowances for all circumstances Guan Seng Co. Ltd. Taiping vs Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Larut Dan Matang, Taiping, High Court, Taiping, Land Reference No , Judge: Abdul Malik Ishak, Date: 5/10/1993, Keywords: Inadequate compensation, method of valuation, market value, onus of proof, valuation of land as a whole. Facts of the Case: The acquisition involved two adjacent lots, namely, lots 142 and 771, Mukim Kamunting, Taiping. The declaration under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was dated Portions of both lots were compulsorily acquired by the State Government of Perak for the construction of a pond for a project to supply water to Kerian, Larut and Matang II. The land administrator awarded RM12,230 and RM28,090 for the scheduled lands, respectively, after considering the reports from both the government and private valuers. The plaintiff claimed that the award was inadequate and brought the matter to Court. 29

31 Issues: The inadequacy of compensation that was awarded and determination of fair market value. Court s Decision: 1. It was trite law that the scheduled lands were to be valued as a whole as the Land Acquisition Act 1960 provided that where only part of a parcel of land was acquired, the remaining part of the land which was not acquired must necessarily be considered for the purpose determining market value. It would, therefore, be in order to value the scheduled lands in lots 142 and 771 as a single unit, more so as they were gazetted for acquisition on the same day and bore the same government gazette number and it was the date of publication of the declaration in the government gazette under Section 8 of the Act which was material for the purpose of determining fair market value. 2. The plaintiff had to prove that the award of the land administrator was inadequate. If he failed to do so, the award of the land administrator stood. But if he succeeded in adducing 12 prima facie evidences, then the land administrator had to support the award by producing credible evidence. 3. The comparison method appeared to be the best method of valuation where the real market value could be arrived at by gathering evidence of sales of similar lands of similar quality or position in the locality of the acquired land at or prior to the time of acquisition. It was the compensation that could be derived at by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser and this was what was meant by market value. The comparison method was accepted and the government valuer had applied the correct principles in evaluating the market value of the scheduled lands. 30

32 Hock Bean Bee Rice Mill Ltd. vs Commissioner of Lands & Mines, Perlis, High Court, Alor Setar, Land Reference: No. 5 of 1959, Judge: Syed Sheh Barakbah, Date: 4/7/1960, Keywords: Compensation, market value, expert opinion, evidence of similar surrounding land sales, Perlis Land Acquisition (Extension to Perlis), Enactment of 1958, FMS Land Acquisition Enactment, offers. Facts of the Case: This was an application against the compensation awarded by the Commissioner of Lands and Mines, Perlis for the acquisition of a piece of land, lot 11, Mukim Kuala Perlis. The acquired land with an area of 2 relongs 397 jembas was planted with paddy. It had a frontage onto Jalan Kuala Perlis and was located within the council area. Determination of market value as at was based on Section 29(1)(a) of the Perlis Land Acquisition (Extension to Perlis) Enactment of 1958, where market value was not defined. Issues: 1. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the compensation awarded at $1,700 per relong. 2. The land could be converted into 18 shoplots. 3. Should offer to purchase the land form the basis of comparison. Court s Decisions: 1. The court held that there was no effort made to convert the land into shop use. However, the learned judge had considered the location of the land within the Town Board area and the possibilities of converting into shops. Based on these factors the value of the land was increased from $1,700 per relong to $2,000 per relong. 2. The court held that the opinion of an expert witness should be supported by evidences, as in Nanyang Manufacturing Co. vs The Collector of Land Revenue Johore, Buhagiar J. stated With regard to 31

33 evidence of experts I adopt the view expressed in the above mentioned case, at page 877 (Harish Chunder Meogy v. Secretary of State II C.W.N. 876) that estimates are undoubtedly some evidence but their value is not great, as expert opinion is liable to err, unless it is supported by, or coincides with, other evidence. NTEN 3. The Court rejected evidence based on offers. 4. The plaintiff was compensated at $2,000 per relong and was paid $5,640 as total compensation. There was no order as to costs Hoe Guan Investment vs Collector of Land Revenue, Batu Pahat High Court, Johore Bahru, Land Reference No. 1 of 1975, Judge: Ajaib Singh, Keywords: Market value, inadequacy of award, onus of proof, method of valuation. Facts of the Case: The land acquired was Lot 4723 C.T having an area of 576 acres 3 roods. The acquired portion itself represented only a small portion of the said lot, at 2 acres 1 rood 28 poles. A notice in Form A under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 was gazetted on followed by a declaration of intended acquisition under Section 8 dated Market value was to be determined at The acquired land was situated about 1¼ mile from the centre of Batu Pahat town. It was facing the highway from Muar to Ayer Hitam via Batu Pahat. At the rear was a one way road to Jalan Pasir Tinggi. The land was vacant except for a few coconut trees and had not been developed yet because it was not considered suitable for development. The Collector held an enquiry on At the enquiry the plaintiff valued the acquired land at $4.50 per sq. ft. On the Collector made an award of $1.30 per sq. ft. 32

34 Issues: 1. The plaintiff claimed that the Collector s award of $1.30 per sq. ft. was below the market value of the land prevailing at the relevant date. 2. The Collector had failed to provide for the physical characteristics of the land in terms of the location and size in comparison with the sale he had compared with. Court s Decision: 1. The party who objected to the award on the ground of inadequacy had to show prima facie that such an award was inadequate and thereupon it was for the Collector to support his award based on such evidence as he might have to offer. The learned judge quoted Broomfield J. in Assistant Development Officer, Bombay vs Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori:. The party claiming enhanced compensation is more or less in the position of a plaintiff and must produce evidence to show that the award is inadequate. If he has no evidence the award must stand, and if he succeeds in showing prima facie that the award is inadequate, then Government must support the award by producing evidence. MAIN MENU 2. Market value was not defined in the Land Acquisition Act 1960, but had been judicially defined and the most favoured being the price that an owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser with whom he was bargaining for the sale and purchase of the land. 3. The generally recognised methods of ascertaining market value were:- i. by considering the purchase price of bona fide transactions of the same land or part of the same land as is acquired or of lands adjoining the land acquired, within a reasonable time in relation to the relevant date of acquisition, and having more or less similar advantages as that of the land acquired; ii. by the number of years purchase of the profit from the land acquired, and 33