Alhamdulillah kali ini saya paparkan pandangan dari Tuan Pengarah JKPTG Pulau Pinang berkaitan tajuk di atas sebagaimana dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan yang pada pendapat saya amat berguna bukan sahaja kepada Pentadbiran Tanah dalam mengendalikan proses pengambilan tanah untuk memenuhi kehendak Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 BAHKAN YANG LEBIH PENTING KEPADA AGENSI PEMOHON.
Sebenarnya perkara tersebut sering saya sentuh di dalam ceramah saya kerana untuk memenuhi Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Akta menghendaki Pentadbir Tanah mengikuti garis panduan yang telah ditetapkan dalam Jadual Pertama kepada Akta tersebut TETAPI MASIH RAMAI DIKALANGAN PENTADBIR TANAH YANG TIDAK MEMAHAMI SECARA MENDALAM.
Pandangan:
Saya
ingin kongsi satu keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di tahun 2008 mengenai
tanggungjawab Pentadbir Tanah di bawah sek 12(1) APT. Saya rasa tuan sudah
maklumkan kedudukan laporan JPPH ini semasa ceramah ataupun dalam blog Tinta Bayu.
Hal ini timbul apabila agensi seringkali
menganggap laporan JPPH dijadikan kemestian untuk Pentadbir Tanah menerima
bulat-bulat. Apabila tidak ikut walaupun ada sedikit kenaikan mulalah membuat
persepsi yang bukan-bukan.
Semasa
mengendalikan siasatan Pentadbir Tanah akan mendengar tuntutan daripada tuan
tanah dan mendengar laporan penilaian swasta yang dilantik kemudiannya
perbandingan akan dibuat dengan laporan JPPH. Jika ada bukti kuat dan munasabah daripada tuan tanah, sudah tentu
laporan JPPH tidak diterima. Konsep ini mengikut doktrin audi alteram partem. Kes ini melibatkan pertikaian antara Singapore Para Rubber Estate Limited Lwn Pentadbir
Tanah Daerah Rembau, (2008) 6 MLJ
763. Dalam perbicaraan itu, pihak
Plaintif mempertikaian laporan penilaian JPPH yang dirujuk dan diterima oleh
Pentadbir Tanah disediakan sebelum tarikh warta seksyen 8. Panel hakim terdiri
Alauddin Mohd Shariff, Hashim Hj Yusof dan Zulkifli Ahmad Makinuddin memutuskan
seperti berikut:-
40. The alleged non-compliance is in respect of the valuation report prepared by the Jabatan Perkhidmatan dan Penilaian (JPPH), the government valuer, in which the date for determining the market value of the land to be acquired was stated to be 19 February 2002 instead of 11 April 2002 (the date of Gazette under section 8 of the Act).
41. The proviso to subsection 12 (1) of the Act provides that the Land Administrator may obtain a written opinion on the value of the all scheduled land from a valuer prior to making an award under section 14.
42. The written opinion or report provided under the proviso to the subsection 12 (1) only acts as a guidance to the Land Administrator. What the Land Administrator is required to do is to make a full enquiry into the value of all schedule lands an shall as soon as possible thereafter assess the amount of the compensation which in his opinion is appropriate before he made an award under section 14(1) of the Act.
43. As a matter of fact, the Land Administrator is not bound to accept the valuation report by the Government Valuer which merely act as a guide in determining the award of compensation.
40. The alleged non-compliance is in respect of the valuation report prepared by the Jabatan Perkhidmatan dan Penilaian (JPPH), the government valuer, in which the date for determining the market value of the land to be acquired was stated to be 19 February 2002 instead of 11 April 2002 (the date of Gazette under section 8 of the Act).
41. The proviso to subsection 12 (1) of the Act provides that the Land Administrator may obtain a written opinion on the value of the all scheduled land from a valuer prior to making an award under section 14.
42. The written opinion or report provided under the proviso to the subsection 12 (1) only acts as a guidance to the Land Administrator. What the Land Administrator is required to do is to make a full enquiry into the value of all schedule lands an shall as soon as possible thereafter assess the amount of the compensation which in his opinion is appropriate before he made an award under section 14(1) of the Act.
43. As a matter of fact, the Land Administrator is not bound to accept the valuation report by the Government Valuer which merely act as a guide in determining the award of compensation.
KAMARUL HAIZAL BIN
KODERAT
PENGARAH
JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN (PERSEKUTUAN)
NEGERI PULAU PINANG
PENGARAH
JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN (PERSEKUTUAN)
NEGERI PULAU PINANG
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan