High Court Seeks Updates from Govt, Semantan Estate on Compensation Assessment for Duta Enclave Land

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 17): The High Court has directed the federal government and Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd to provide clarity on how the assessment of compensation and damages will be carried out, following the confirmed decision that the Duta Enclave land—acquired in 1956—remains under government ownership.

The instruction was issued during case management before High Court Judge Roslan Mat Nor on Monday, after the Federal Court last week upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the physical land and title cannot be returned to Semantan Estate. Instead, compensation must now be assessed based on the 1956 market valuation, as previously ordered.

Semantan Estate’s counsel, Janet Chai Pei Ying, said the court has requested both parties to update their position on the methodology and process for the compensation assessment. Another case management is scheduled for Jan 20, 2026.

Compensation vs Mesne Profits: Two Separate Legal Tracks

The compensation assessment—based on the land’s 1956 market rate—is separate from the mesne profits proceedings, which determine damages owed for the government’s long-term occupation of the land.

• Semantan Estate estimates mesne profits at RM5–RM12 billion

• Government valuers estimate approximately RM290 million

The mesne profits matter, overseen by High Court Judge Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh, is set for submissions on Dec 11, having concluded its hearing.

The land in question spans 263.272 acres and today houses key government buildings including the Inland Revenue Board headquarters, National Archives, Malaysian Examination Syndicate, KL Syariah Courts, the MACC Academy, and the Duta Bus Terminal.

Semantan Estate was originally paid RM1.32 million in 1956 for the acquisition.

Federal Court: No Legal Basis to Return Land

In its unanimous decision on Nov 13, the Federal Court—led by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim—ruled that Semantan Estate’s appeal failed to meet the legal threshold for further review.

Hasnah emphasised:

• The 2009 High Court ruling confirming trespass did not include any order compelling the government to return or transfer the land.

• No legal remedy exists to enforce such a transfer today.

• Compensation must therefore follow the 1956 acquisition value, consistent with statutory requirements.

With the land long developed into critical government infrastructure, the Court of Appeal earlier noted that returning it after nearly 70 years would be impractical and contrary to public interest.

Context Within Malaysia’s Property Landscape

The outcome reinforces the importance of clarity in compulsory acquisition procedures, a topic increasingly relevant as demand intensifies across the national property market—from commercial property in KL to major development zones such as industrial land in Selangor, industrial property in the Subang area, and logistics-related hubs where interest from multinational occupiers continues to rise.

The decision also highlights long-standing land disputes’ potential financial impact on developers, historically similar to issues faced with redevelopment areas near office space in Bukit Jalil, or high-growth corridors such as factory zones in Puchong where infrastructure expansion remains key.