YCH Distripark Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue: Compulsory Land Acquisition & Compensation
YCH Distripark Pte Ltd appealed against the Collector of Land Revenue's decision regarding compensation for the compulsory acquisition of property located at 30 Tuas Road, Singapore. The Court of Appeal dismissed both Civil Appeal No 130 of 2019 and Civil Appeal Summons No 36 of 2020, upholding the Appeals Board's decision on the valuation date and market rent of the property. The primary legal issues concerned the relevant date for valuing YCH's lease interest, the method for determining lease rent, and the determination of the property's market rent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Civil Appeal No 130 of 2019 and Civil Appeal Summons No 36 of 2020 dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
YCH Distripark's appeal against the Collector of Land Revenue's compensation for compulsory land acquisition was dismissed. The court determined the valuation date and market rent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YCH Distripark Pte Ltd | Applicant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Nish Kumar Shetty, Krishna Elan, Lua Jing Ing Priscilla, Tan Tian Yi, Loh Tian Kai |
| The Collector of Land Revenue | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Upheld | Won | Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal, Tang Shangjun, Evans Ng, Lim Wei Wen Gordon |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nish Kumar Shetty | Cavenagh Law LLP |
| Krishna Elan | Cavenagh Law LLP |
| Lua Jing Ing Priscilla | Cavenagh Law LLP |
| Tan Tian Yi | Cavenagh Law LLP |
| Loh Tian Kai | Clifford Chance Pte Ltd |
| Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tang Shangjun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Evans Ng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Wei Wen Gordon | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- YCH was the sub-lessee of property at 30 Tuas Road under a ten-year lease from 2006.
- A declaration was issued on 5 January 2011 to acquire part of the property.
- A second declaration was issued on 30 December 2011 to acquire the whole property.
- The Collector awarded compensation for relocation expenses and the depreciated value of ASRS.
- The Collector did not award compensation for YCH’s lease interest.
- YCH appealed to the Appeals Board, which agreed with the Collector's valuation date.
- YCH claimed a profit rent based on the difference between lease rent and market rent.
5. Formal Citations
- YCH Distripark Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue and another matter, , [2020] SGCA 67
- YCH Distripark Pte Ltd v The Collector of Land Revenue, 130 of 2019, Civil Appeal No 130 of 2019
- YCH Distripark Pte Ltd v The Collector of Land Revenue, 36 of 2020, Civil Appeal Summons No 36 of 2020
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ten-year lease commencing for YCH Distripark Pte Ltd. | |
| First Declaration issued under s 5 of the Land Acquisition Act. | |
| First Declaration published in the Gazette. | |
| Second Declaration issued. | |
| Second Declaration published in the Gazette. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Valuation Date for Lease Interest
- Outcome: The court held that the relevant date for valuing YCH's lease interest was the Second Gazette Date.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- Bhagwandas Nagindas v Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1915 Bom 15
- Saraswathi Printing Works v State of Mysore AIR 1974 Kant 125
- State of Bihar v Kundan Singh AIR 1964 SC 350
- Ma Sin and Ors v Collector of Rangoon AIR 1929 PC 126, [1929] UKPC 15
- Collector, Hanthawaddy v Sulaiman Adamjee AIR 1941 Rang 225
- State of West Bengal v Bhutnath Chatterjee AIR 1965 Cal 620
- Determination of Lease Rent
- Outcome: The court held that lease rent should be calculated on the basis of actual Gross Floor Area (GFA), not 'Market GFA'.
- Category: Substantive
- Determination of Market Rent
- Outcome: The court found no basis to disturb the Appeals Board's determination of the property's market rent.
- Category: Substantive
- Adducing Further Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court disallowed the application to adduce further evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) [2019] 2 SLR 341
- Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
8. Remedies Sought
- Increased compensation for land acquisition
- Compensation for lease interest
9. Cause of Actions
- Appeal against compensation for compulsory land acquisition
10. Practice Areas
- Land Acquisition
- Appeals
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Logistics
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bhagwandas Nagindas v Special Land Acquisition Officer | Bombay High Court | Yes | Bhagwandas Nagindas v Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1915 Bom 15 | India | Cited to support the argument that a subsequent acquisition requires a further declaration. |
| Saraswathi Printing Works v State of Mysore | Karnataka High Court | Yes | Saraswathi Printing Works v State of Mysore AIR 1974 Kant 125 | India | Cited as an example of a case holding that no further declaration was required, but the court found it unpersuasive. |
| State of Bihar v Kundan Singh | Supreme Court | Yes | State of Bihar v Kundan Singh AIR 1964 SC 350 | India | Cited in Saraswathi Printing Works, but the court notes that it does not support the position that no further declaration is required. |
| Ma Sin and Ors v Collector of Rangoon | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | Yes | Ma Sin and Ors v Collector of Rangoon AIR 1929 PC 126, [1929] UKPC 15 | United Kingdom | Cited as applicable to the present case, where a second declaration superseded the first, making the date of the second declaration the operative date for valuation. |
| Collector, Hanthawaddy v Sulaiman Adamjee | Rangoon High Court | Yes | Collector, Hanthawaddy v Sulaiman Adamjee AIR 1941 Rang 225 | Burma (now Myanmar) | Cited by YCH, but the court found it unhelpful due to amendments to the Indian Land Acquisition Act. |
| State of West Bengal v Bhutnath Chatterjee | Calcutta High Court | Yes | State of West Bengal v Bhutnath Chatterjee AIR 1965 Cal 620 | India | Cited by YCH, but the court found it unhelpful due to amendments to the Indian Land Acquisition Act. |
| Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) | Court of Appeal of Singapore | Yes | Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) [2019] 2 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Ladd v Marshall test for adducing further evidence on appeal. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Court of Appeal | Yes | Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the test to adduce further evidence on appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Acquisition Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Compulsory acquisition
- Land Acquisition Act
- Lease interest
- Profit rent
- Market rent
- Gross floor area
- Automated Storage and Retrieval System
- Valuation date
- Declaration
- Gazette date
15.2 Keywords
- land acquisition
- compensation
- lease
- valuation
- market rent
- singapore
16. Subjects
- Land Law
- Valuation
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Land Acquisition Law
- Civil Procedure
- Compulsory Acquisition
- Valuation Law