By Non-Constituency MP, Yee Jenn Jong
[Delivered in Parliament on 13 Mar 2015]
Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Senior Minister of State had explained, the amendments to this Bill are to enable the government to acquire a specific stratum of underground space or air space to develop public projects, instead of having to acquire the entire column of land. It also elaborates on issues of temporary occupation of private land for public purposes.
I support this bill. I have some clarifications regarding temporary occupation of land.
Part VI – “Temporary Occupation of Land” is proposed to be repealed and replaced by “Temporary Occupation and Use of Land”.
Under Clause 5 of the proposed new Part VI, Section 43(3)(a) of the Bill, financial loss resulting from the interruption of any trade or business carried out on any land cannot be taken into account in the assessment of any claim for compensation.
I noted the previously stated government’s position on compensating for business loss. The then-Minister for Law Professor S Jayakumar had stated in April 2007 in an earlier amendment of the Land Acquisition Act that the government will not compensate for business loss because “it is a very difficult set of factors to assess business loss and loss of goodwill.”
While it is true that there are many factors affecting business loss or loss of goodwill besides the temporary occupation, business owners, especially the small business owners can be adversely affected by temporary occupation. For example, if part of the land was occupied such that significant frontages of the land have been taken away or customers have to make big diversions to enter the business unit.
I’d to ask how the government would view requests from businesses that have indeed suffered loss of business and loss of goodwill from temporary occupation. Would there be some government assistance schemes they can be provided with?
Also, what if the land was leased to tenants and tenants quit due to the temporary occupation. The business associated with the land is leasing. Are land owners able to seek compensation due to the loss of tenants when the main business of the land owner is to lease out the land?
Next clarification pertains to the land owner requesting for acquisition. If the land owner is not happy with the compensation or other issues related to the temporary occupation, the land owner can ask for compulsory acquisition by the government under clause 9. This is provided that the landowner has suffered a “substantial impairment of his rights in those lands”, as defined by Section 49A (8) of this amendment bill. The definition of “Substantial impairment” seems to require that no occupier can use the land for more than a year. So this option to request the government to acquire the space permanently is not always an option.
Assuming that the landowner has met the criteria of substantial impairment, there may be potential problems with requiring the government to permanently acquire the land.
Under Clause 7 of the Bill, the proposed Section 49(3) states that “Any notice under this section is irrevocable once given to the Collector.”
I am concerned about this wording as this seems to suggest that once the landowner request for the government to acquire the land, that offer cannot be revoked even if the price offered turns out to be substantially below what the landowner feels is fair value.
What is the rationale for not allowing the notice to be revoked by the landowner? Is there a way for the landowner to be given an indicative value of the land before the request is made for the government to acquire it? Is there any cost the landowner needs to pay if such a request for indicative value is allowed? And what will happen if the eventual price differs significantly from the indicative value?
Can the landowner challenge the acquisition price of the Collector in the High Court? Even if a challenge is allowed, it may be costly and with unpredictable outcomes. Would it not be better to allow the landowner an option to revoke the notice for compulsory acquisition?
Thank you