Land acquisition involves the compulsory taking of land, often against the will of the landowners. The law in Malaysia requires the state to pay compensation adequately; however, adequate compensation is not defined in the statute. Historically, the courts seem to have succumbed to the pretense that the adequacy requirement may be achieved by giving sufficient monetary rewards in exchange. The questions are what monetary quantum is appropriate to constitute the constitutional mandate of adequate compensation; what should be the measure of compensation; what makes compensation adequate, and what are the tests of adequacy? A questionnaire survey was conducted among practicing valuers to discern their views with regard to the above issues. This survey revealed the views that compensation attributes under the stipulated laws are not adequate to fulfill adequate compensation notion under the spirit of Article 13 of Federal Constitution 1957. There is a need to review the heads of compensation structures by incorporating other countries practices such as payment of solatium or premium as over and above total compensation. Most of the valuers believed that land acquisition need not necessarily present the best alternative for the government to secure land for development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alias et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: