Malaysian Property Law

Making Objections to the Collector’s Award: Form N, Section 38(2), Fresh Claims, Leave of Court and Procedural Fairness

1. Case Study

Case Study: Can a Landowner Introduce Claims for Injurious Affection, Severance and Consequential Loss for the First Time at the High Court Reference?

Background

Mr. Rahman owns a large parcel of land that becomes subject to compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The Land Administrator conducts an inquiry under the statutory acquisition procedure.

Following the inquiry, the Collector makes an award of compensation.

Mr. Rahman is dissatisfied with that award.

He therefore wishes to object to the compensation awarded and have the matter referred to the High Court.

Application for Reference under Section 38(1)

Mr. Rahman submits the prescribed written application in Form N to the Land Administrator pursuant to section 38(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The purpose of the application is to identify the objection that Mr. Rahman wishes to have determined by the court.

However, in his Form N application, Mr. Rahman does not include claims for:

injurious affection;

severance;

and

consequential loss.

Those heads of compensation are also not properly raised during the earlier inquiry before the Collector.

High Court Reference

The compensation reference subsequently reaches the High Court.

For the first time during the substantive hearing, Mr. Rahman attempts to advance additional claims for:

injurious affection;

severance;

and

consequential loss.

He argues that these losses arise naturally from the compulsory acquisition and should therefore be considered by the court as part of the proper compensation payable.

The Collector’s Objection

The Collector objects.

He argues that Mr. Rahman cannot introduce completely new heads of compensation without first complying with section 38(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Section 38(2) requires every application for reference to state fully the grounds on which objection to the award is taken.

It further provides that at the court hearing no other ground may be advanced in argument without leave of the court.

The Collector therefore argues that the claims cannot simply be introduced for the first time during the substantive reference hearing.

Section 38(2)

The principle contained in section 38(2) may be expressed in two parts.

First, the objector must fully state the grounds of objection in the application for reference.

Second, if the objector later wishes to advance a fresh claim or new ground, he must obtain leave of the court.

Accordingly, the statutory regime does not create an absolutely closed system.

However, it does prevent a claimant from unexpectedly expanding the compensation case without judicial permission.

First Authority:

Damansara Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Petaling

The first important authority is Damansara Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Petaling.

The case was decided by the Supreme Court.

The coram consisted of Harun Hashim, Ajaib Singh and Jemuri Serjan SCJJ.

Harun Hashim SCJ delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court.

The court considered the operation of sections 38(1) and 38(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The Door Is Not Completely Shut

The Supreme Court explained that the statutory scheme does not completely shut the door against an objector who wishes to introduce a fresh claim or new ground.

This remains possible even where the claim was not raised:

at the inquiry before the Collector under section 12;

or

in the original application for reference under section 38(1).

However, the objector cannot introduce the new claim as of right.

The objector must obtain leave of the court before advancing it.

Importance of Prior Leave

The leave requirement is therefore the key procedural safeguard.

Without leave, the new claim cannot simply be introduced during the hearing.

With leave, however, the court may permit the claimant to expand the grounds of objection.

This creates a balance between:

procedural finality;

and

flexibility where justice requires an additional claim to be considered.

Section 45(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960

The Supreme Court also considered section 45(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Section 45(2) provides, in substance, that except so far as inconsistent with the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the law relating to civil procedure applies to proceedings before the court under the Act.

This provision is important because it means that the application for leave to introduce a fresh claim is not made in a procedural vacuum.

The ordinary rules of civil procedure may apply, provided they do not conflict with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Why a Formal Application Matters

Harun Hashim SCJ explained that a proper application for leave serves an important procedural purpose.

It gives the Collector notice that the claimant wishes to expand the case.

The Collector can then:

make the necessary inquiries;

prepare a response;

file an affidavit-in-reply where appropriate;

and

object to the application if there are proper grounds for doing so.

This promotes procedural fairness.

No Trial by Surprise

The additional ground should not simply be introduced for the first time during the substantive reference hearing.

The Supreme Court criticised the practice of effectively throwing the new ground before the court at the hearing.

Such conduct places both:

the Collector;

and

the court

in a position of surprise.

The Collector may not have gathered the evidence necessary to answer the new claim.

The court may also lack the proper evidential and procedural foundation needed to adjudicate it fairly.

Second Authority:

Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd (now known as Y & Y Estate Sdn Bhd) v Pentadbiran Tanah Daerah Kinta

The second important authority is Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd (now known as Y & Y Estate Sdn Bhd) v Pentadbiran Tanah Daerah Kinta.

This was a decision of the Federal Court.

Abdul Malek Ahmad PCA delivered the judgment.

The case concerned, among other matters, a claim for injurious affection.

Objection by the Senior Federal Counsel

The Senior Federal Counsel objected to the claim for injurious affection because it had:

not been pleaded in the appellant’s valuation report;

and

not been argued during the trial before the High Court judge.

The appellant therefore attempted to raise the matter as a new issue before the Federal Court.

Application of Section 38(2)

The Senior Federal Counsel contended that section 38(2) prevented the appellant from introducing the new ground without first obtaining the court’s leave.

The argument reflected the same fundamental principle recognised in Damansara Jaya.

A claimant cannot maintain one compensation case before the Collector and High Court, and then introduce an entirely different head of compensation on appeal without proper procedural permission.

Important Statutory Citation Point

The source material refers to a claim for injurious affection under “section 2(d)” of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

For accurate statutory analysis, injurious affection is ordinarily associated with paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960, rather than section 2(d) of the Act itself.

This distinction should be stated correctly in examination and academic writing.

The Central Conflict

The central questions are therefore:

Must an objector fully state the grounds of objection in Form N?

Can a new claim that was omitted before the Collector and omitted from the section 38(1) application later be introduced?

What role does section 38(2) play?

Why must leave be obtained before the new ground is advanced?

What procedural protections does section 45(2) provide?

Can a claim for injurious affection be introduced for the first time at the Federal Court stage?

The central principle is:

An objector is ordinarily confined to the grounds stated in the application for reference, but section 38(2) allows a fresh claim or new ground to be introduced with leave of the court; without such leave, a new claim cannot simply be raised for the first time during the substantive reference hearing or on appeal.

2. Questions and Answers with Case Examples

Question 1: What must an application objecting to the Collector’s award contain?

Answer

The application must state fully the grounds upon which the objection to the award is taken.

This requirement is imposed by section 38(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

It ensures that the scope of the compensation dispute is properly identified before the court hearing.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a Form N stating only “I disagree with the compensation” sufficiently identifies the objection.

Rule

Section 38(2) requires the grounds of objection to be stated fully.

Application

Mr. Rahman gives no indication whether he disputes market value, severance, injurious affection or another compensable matter.

Conclusion

A vague objection may fail to comply adequately with section 38(2).

Question 2: What is the role of Form N?

Answer

Form N is the written application made to the Land Administrator under section 38(1) for a reference to the court.

The relevant grounds of objection should be properly identified in that application.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a landowner should identify a severance claim in the reference application.

Rule

The grounds relied upon should ordinarily be stated in the application itself.

Application

The owner believes partial acquisition has divided the remaining land and reduced its value.

Conclusion

The severance objection should ordinarily be included in the Form N application.

Question 3: Is an objector absolutely prohibited from raising any fresh claim after Form N is filed?

Answer

No.

This is the important qualification recognised in Damansara Jaya.

The door is not completely shut.

A fresh claim or new ground may still be introduced if the objector obtains leave of the court.

Case Example

Issue

Whether an omitted claim is permanently lost.

Rule

Section 38(2) permits a new ground with judicial permission.

Application

Mr. Rahman discovers a genuine severance claim after the original reference application has been filed and promptly applies for leave.

Conclusion

The High Court may consider allowing the additional ground.

Question 4: Can a claim omitted at the section 12 inquiry later be raised?

Answer

Potentially, yes.

The Supreme Court in Damansara Jaya recognised that a fresh claim may be introduced even though the objector failed to raise it at the inquiry before the Collector under section 12.

However, prior leave is required.

Case Example

Issue

Whether omission at the Collector’s inquiry creates an absolute bar.

Rule

The omission is not necessarily fatal if the court subsequently grants leave.

Application

The claimant did not raise injurious affection before the Collector but later makes a proper application to add it.

Conclusion

The court has discretion to permit the claim.

Question 5: Can a claim omitted from the section 38(1) application later be raised?

Answer

Again, potentially yes.

However, it cannot be argued as of right.

Section 38(2) requires the objector to obtain the leave of the court.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the claimant may simply amend his case orally during the High Court hearing.

Rule

A new ground requires leave.

Application

The claimant introduces consequential loss during final submissions without making any prior application.

Conclusion

The court may refuse to entertain the new ground.

Question 6: Why did

Damansara Jaya

say that “the door is not completely shut”?

Answer

Because section 38(2) expressly gives the court power to allow an additional ground.

The statutory scheme therefore combines discipline with flexibility.

The objector is expected to identify the case fully at the outset.

However, genuine omissions may be corrected where the court considers it proper to grant leave.

Case Example

Issue

Whether procedural rules should always prevent correction of an honest omission.

Rule

The court retains discretion to allow a fresh claim.

Application

An additional loss is discovered before substantive evidence begins and the opposing party can answer it without serious prejudice.

Conclusion

The court may grant leave in an appropriate case.

Question 7: Why must leave be obtained before the new claim is advanced?

Answer

Leave prevents procedural surprise and allows the court to manage the litigation fairly.

It gives the Collector an opportunity to understand and respond to the new case.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the acquiring authority should be required to answer a claim it first hears during closing submissions.

Rule

A new ground cannot simply be introduced without permission.

Application

The claimant suddenly alleges RM2 million in severance loss on the final day of trial.

Conclusion

The court may exclude the claim unless proper leave has first been obtained.

Question 8: What is the importance of section 45(2)?

Answer

Section 45(2) provides that, except where inconsistent with the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the law relating to civil procedure applies to court proceedings under the Act.

This permits the procedural machinery of the courts to regulate applications such as an application for leave to introduce a fresh ground.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a claimant can ignore normal procedural requirements merely because the proceeding arises under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Rule

Applicable civil procedure continues to operate unless inconsistent with the Act.

Application

The procedural rules require a properly supported application before an amendment is considered.

Conclusion

The claimant should comply with those requirements.

Question 9: How does an application for leave protect the Collector?

Answer

It gives the Collector notice of the proposed new claim.

The Collector may then:

investigate the factual basis of the claim;

obtain valuation evidence;

prepare affidavits;

and

object to the application where appropriate.

Case Example

Issue

Whether procedural notice is necessary where a new claim requires expert evidence.

Rule

Fairness requires the opposing party to have a genuine opportunity to answer the claim.

Application

The claimant alleges substantial injurious affection to retained land for the first time.

Conclusion

The Collector should be given an opportunity to obtain expert valuation evidence responding to the allegation.

Question 10: Why did the Supreme Court object to a new ground being “thrown” before the court at the hearing?

Answer

Because the practice creates trial by surprise.

Neither the Collector nor the court has had the opportunity to prepare properly for the new issue.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a complex new compensation claim should be introduced without warning at trial.

Rule

Section 38(2) prevents surprise expansion of the reference without leave.

Application

A claim for consequential loss involving substantial expert evidence is first raised during the reference hearing.

Conclusion

The court may refuse to entertain it.

Question 11: What claims were sought to be introduced in

Damansara Jaya

?

Answer

The additional claims included:

injurious affection;

severance;

and

consequential loss.

These claims had not been properly brought within the reference before the substantive hearing.

Case Example

Issue

Whether such heads of compensation automatically arise whenever part of land is acquired.

Rule

Each compensation head must be legally available, properly raised and supported by evidence.

Application

The owner merely asserts the three heads without setting out a factual basis.

Conclusion

They cannot automatically be awarded.

Question 12: What happened in

Sin Yee Estate

?

Answer

In Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd (now known as Y & Y Estate Sdn Bhd) v Pentadbiran Tanah Daerah Kinta, an injurious-affection claim was challenged because it had not been pleaded in the appellant’s valuation report and had not been argued before the High Court.

It was therefore characterised as a new issue raised before the Federal Court.

Case Example

Issue

Whether an entirely new compensation head may first appear at the Federal Court.

Rule

Section 38(2) requires leave before a new ground may be advanced.

Application

The Federal Court is asked to determine injurious affection despite there being no trial-level argument or factual findings on the issue.

Conclusion

The claimant cannot ordinarily raise it as of right.

Question 13: Why is omission from the valuation report important?

Answer

A valuation report usually identifies the valuation basis and compensation heads relied upon.

If injurious affection is not included, the acquiring authority may have no reason to prepare competing expert evidence on that issue.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a valuation issue can fairly be introduced after the expert evidence is complete.

Rule

The parties should have notice of material valuation claims so they can prepare their evidence.

Application

The claimant’s report discusses only the value of the acquired land and says nothing about diminution in the retained land.

Conclusion

Introducing injurious affection much later may cause significant procedural prejudice.

Question 14: What is the correct statutory reference for injurious affection?

Answer

For accurate statutory citation, injurious affection is ordinarily considered under paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Where older material refers to “section 2(d)”, it should be treated cautiously.

Case Example

Issue

Whether statutory provisions should be cited precisely in an examination answer.

Rule

Accurate identification of the applicable provision improves legal analysis.

Application

A student writes that injurious affection is governed by “section 2(d)” without identifying the First Schedule.

Conclusion

The stronger formulation is paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

3. Case Study Revisited

Mr. Rahman’s Attempt to Expand His Compensation Reference

Mr. Rahman objects to the Collector’s award.

He submits Form N under section 38(1).

However, he does not include claims for:

injurious affection;

severance;

or

consequential loss.

He had also failed to raise those matters at the earlier inquiry under section 12.

The reference reaches the High Court.

During the substantive hearing, Mr. Rahman attempts to introduce all three claims.

The Collector objects under section 38(2).

Mr. Rahman relies upon Damansara Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Petaling.

That case confirms that the door is not completely closed.

A claimant may introduce a fresh ground even if it was omitted:

at the Collector’s inquiry;

and

from the original section 38(1) application.

However, prior leave of court must be obtained.

Section 45(2) further means that applicable principles and rules of civil procedure may regulate how that leave is sought.

A proper application gives the Collector the opportunity to investigate the new claim, answer it and object if necessary.

Mr. Rahman cannot simply introduce the claim unexpectedly during the reference hearing.

Doing so would catch both the Collector and the court by surprise.

The same principle is reinforced by Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd (now known as Y & Y Estate Sdn Bhd) v Pentadbiran Tanah Daerah Kinta.

There, an injurious-affection claim was not pleaded in the valuation report.

It was not argued before the High Court.

It was then sought to be raised as a new issue before the Federal Court.

The Senior Federal Counsel relied upon section 38(2) and argued that the appellant could not advance the new ground without leave.

The dispute therefore concerns:

Form N;

section 38(1);

section 38(2);

section 12;

section 45(2);

fresh compensation claims;

leave of court;

civil procedure;

injurious affection;

severance;

consequential loss;

valuation evidence;

trial by surprise;

and

new issues on appeal.

4. Solution to the Case Study

Issue

The first issue is whether Mr. Rahman was required to state fully his grounds of objection in Form N.

The second issue is whether omission of injurious affection, severance and consequential loss permanently prevents those claims from being raised.

The third issue is whether the High Court has power to permit those additional claims.

The fourth issue is whether Mr. Rahman must obtain prior leave.

The fifth issue is how section 45(2) affects the procedure for seeking leave.

The sixth issue is whether an unpleaded compensation claim can properly be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.

Rule

Section 38(2) requires the objector to state fully the grounds of objection to the Collector’s award.

No additional ground may be given in argument without leave of the court.

In Damansara Jaya, the Supreme Court held that a fresh claim or new ground may potentially be advanced during the reference even though it was not previously raised at the section 12 inquiry or in the section 38(1) application.

However, the objector must obtain prior leave.

Section 45(2) provides that applicable civil procedural law governs court proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 except where inconsistent with the Act.

A proper leave application therefore gives the Collector an opportunity to investigate, respond and object.

A new ground should not simply be introduced unexpectedly during the substantive reference hearing.

The same principle applies strongly where a new compensation issue is first raised on appeal, as illustrated by Sin Yee Estate.

Application

First: Form N

Mr. Rahman was required to state fully the grounds upon which he challenged the award.

He failed to identify three proposed compensation heads.

They therefore did not automatically form part of the reference.

Second: Earlier Omission

The failure to raise the claims at the section 12 inquiry does not necessarily destroy them forever.

Damansara Jaya makes clear that the court possesses discretion to allow a fresh claim.

Third: Leave

However, Mr. Rahman cannot bypass section 38(2).

He must seek and obtain leave before arguing the additional claims.

Fourth: Procedural Fairness

A proper application allows the Collector to investigate whether:

the retained land has actually diminished in value;

severance occurred;

consequential losses are legally compensable;

and

the amounts claimed are supported by evidence.

Fifth: Surprise

If Mr. Rahman simply raises the new claims during the hearing, the Collector has been denied proper notice.

The court itself may also lack the material required to adjudicate the claims fairly.

The additional claims should therefore not be entertained as of right.

Sixth: Appeal Stage

If Mr. Rahman waits until the Federal Court to introduce injurious affection, the procedural problem becomes even more serious.

There would be no High Court findings of fact on the issue.

There may also be no valuation evidence properly tested at trial.

Without leave, the new ground cannot ordinarily be advanced.

Conclusion

Mr. Rahman is not absolutely prevented from introducing a fresh compensation claim.

However, he must comply with section 38(2) and obtain prior leave of court.

Without leave, the new claims for injurious affection, severance and consequential loss should not be entertained.

5. Critical Analysis

1. Section 38(2) Defines the Scope of the Compensation Dispute

The requirement to state grounds fully is not a meaningless formality.

It identifies what the objector says is wrong with the Collector’s award.

This allows the reference to proceed on a clearly defined basis.

2. Form N Is Procedurally Significant

The Form N application performs more than a notification function.

It identifies the objections that are being referred to the court.

An objector should therefore treat preparation of Form N as a substantive litigation step rather than a routine administrative formality.

3.

Damansara Jaya

Prevents Excessive Rigidity

An absolute rule prohibiting every omitted claim could sometimes cause injustice.

The Supreme Court therefore recognised that the door remains open.

A legitimate fresh ground may still be considered.

However, that flexibility is controlled by the requirement of leave.

4. Leave Protects Procedural Fairness

The objector’s right to pursue compensation must be balanced against the Collector’s right to know the case that must be answered.

A new claim may require substantial investigation and expert evidence.

The leave procedure gives the court an opportunity to balance those interests.

5. Section 45(2) Connects Land Acquisition Proceedings with Civil Procedure

Compensation references are statutory proceedings.

Nevertheless, they do not operate outside ordinary procedural law.

Section 45(2) expressly incorporates civil procedural rules unless inconsistent with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

This reinforces orderly adjudication.

6. New Grounds Should Not Be Introduced by Ambush

The Supreme Court’s criticism of a new claim being effectively “thrown” before the court reflects a fundamental principle of justice.

Litigation should not proceed by surprise.

Parties must have a fair opportunity to prepare and respond.

7. The Collector May Need Fresh Investigations

A new severance or injurious-affection claim can require entirely different factual inquiries from a straightforward market-value dispute.

The Collector may need to inspect the residual land, examine access, commission expert valuation evidence and analyse causation.

This explains why advance notice is essential.

8. Injurious Affection Must Be Distinguished from Market Value

The value of the land actually acquired and the damage caused to the remaining land are legally distinct matters.

A claimant should not assume that pleading one necessarily includes the other.

9.

Sin Yee Estate

Shows the Greater Difficulty of Raising New Issues on Appeal

The further litigation progresses, the stronger the procedural objections may become.

A new factual compensation claim raised only before the Federal Court creates problems because the trial court has never considered the evidence.

Appellate review is not ordinarily intended to become the first trial of a new compensation head.

10. The Valuation Report Helps Define the Evidential Case

Where a claimant’s own expert report says nothing about injurious affection, this may strongly suggest that the issue was not part of the compensation case tried below.

Introducing it later risks unfairness to the opposing party.

11. Leave and Substantive Entitlement Are Separate

Even if the court grants leave, the objector must still prove the new claim.

For example, permission to argue severance does not prove that severance loss actually occurred.

The claimant remains responsible for establishing the factual and legal ingredients of the compensation head.

12. The Best Doctrine Is Controlled Flexibility

The combined effect of sections 38(2) and 45(2), together with Damansara Jaya and Sin Yee Estate, produces a balanced regime.

The claimant is expected to state the complete compensation case at the outset.

However, genuine omissions can potentially be corrected.

The correction must occur through a transparent application for leave rather than procedural ambush.

6. Recommendations

1. Identify All Grounds before Filing Form N

The landowner should conduct a complete legal and valuation review before making the section 38(1) application.

2. Consider All Relevant Compensation Heads

Possible claims should include, where factually and legally applicable:

market value;

severance;

injurious affection;

and

other recognised consequential losses.

3. Ensure the Valuation Report Supports Every Material Claim

A compensation head requiring expert valuation should be clearly analysed in the valuation evidence.

4. Do Not Wait until the Reference Hearing to Add a Major Claim

If an omission is discovered, the claimant should act promptly.

5. Apply for Leave Formally

The objector should invoke the court’s discretion under section 38(2) through the procedural mechanism applicable at the relevant time.

6. Give the Collector a Fair Opportunity to Respond

The application should be served sufficiently early to permit inquiries and evidence in reply.

7. Explain the Reason for the Earlier Omission

The court should be given a proper explanation of why the claim was not raised previously.

8. Avoid Raising Fact-Intensive Compensation Claims for the First Time on Appeal

Such claims should ideally be identified and determined at the High Court reference stage.

9. Cite Injurious Affection Correctly

The stronger statutory reference is paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

10. Use a Clear Examination Structure

For any fresh ground, ask:

Was it raised at the section 12 inquiry?

Was it included in Form N under section 38(1)?

Was it supported by valuation evidence?

Was leave sought under section 38(2)?

Was the Collector given an opportunity to respond?

Was the issue properly adjudicated at first instance?

7. Conclusion

The statutory procedure governing objections to compensation awards under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 requires an objector to define the grounds of challenge with precision.

Under section 38(2), every application must state fully the grounds upon which objection to the Collector’s award is taken.

The objector is ordinarily confined to those grounds during the court proceedings.

However, the restriction is not absolute.

The words “without leave of the court” preserve a limited judicial discretion to permit a fresh compensation claim or new ground.

The Supreme Court decision in Damansara Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Petaling is particularly important.

The court explained that the door is not completely shut merely because the objector failed to raise the claim:

at the inquiry before the Collector under section 12;

or

in the Form N application under section 38(1).

Nevertheless, prior leave must be obtained.

The claimant has no automatic right to introduce an entirely new compensation head during the substantive reference hearing.

Section 45(2) reinforces this procedural discipline.

It provides for the application of the law relating to civil procedure to proceedings before the court under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, except where inconsistent with the Act.

A proper application for leave performs an important fairness function.

It gives the Collector an opportunity to:

investigate the new claim;

prepare evidence;

file a response;

and

object where appropriate.

A claimant should therefore not unexpectedly introduce a fresh ground at the substantive hearing and place both the Collector and the court in a position of surprise.

The same underlying principle is illustrated by Sin Yee Estate Sdn Bhd (now known as Y & Y Estate Sdn Bhd) v Pentadbiran Tanah Daerah Kinta.

The Federal Court was confronted with a claim for injurious affection that had:

not been pleaded in the appellant’s valuation report;

and

not been argued before the High Court.

The Senior Federal Counsel therefore characterised it as a new issue raised for the first time before the Federal Court.

Section 38(2) was relied upon to argue that the appellant could not advance the issue without first obtaining leave.

An additional statutory clarification is important.

Where the material refers to “section 2(d)” in connection with injurious affection, the more accurate citation is ordinarily:

paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

For Malaysian Property Law, the central principle can therefore be stated as follows:

An objector under section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 must state fully the grounds of objection to the Collector’s award in the application for reference; although a fresh claim or new ground may subsequently be introduced, including one omitted at the section 12 inquiry or from Form N, it may only be advanced with prior leave of the court, and the leave procedure must afford the Collector a fair opportunity to investigate, respond and object.

The complementary appellate principle is:

A distinct compensation claim, such as injurious affection, should not ordinarily be raised for the first time before an appellate court where it was neither pleaded in the valuation evidence nor argued before the High Court, unless the necessary leave is obtained.

The correct analytical sequence is therefore:

First, determine what objections were stated in Form N.

Second, identify whether the proposed argument is merely an elaboration of an existing ground or a genuinely fresh compensation claim.

Third, if it is new, determine whether leave under section 38(2) was sought and obtained.

Fourth, consider whether the applicable civil procedural requirements under section 45(2) were followed.

Fifth, determine whether the Collector received a fair opportunity to investigate and respond.

Sixth, if leave is granted, determine separately whether the new compensation claim is legally recognised and factually proved.

Ultimately, Damansara Jaya and Sin Yee Estate establish a balanced rule:

the statutory reference process requires parties to state their compensation case fully and prevents trial by surprise, but the High Court retains controlled discretion to permit a genuine additional ground where justice requires and proper procedural leave has been obtained.