重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(20)】行政法院判例及行政院令，分就徵收之土地應如何認定其是否依計畫使用所為之闡釋合憲。
2014.3.18 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位：司法院
解釋字號：釋字第 236 號
解釋日期：民國 78 年 03 月 17 日
解釋爭點：
行政法院判例及行政院令，分就徵收之土地應如何認定其是否依計畫使用所為之闡釋，是否合憲？
資料來源：
司法院大法官會議解釋續編（四）第 114 頁
司法院公報 第 31 卷 4 期 5-17 頁
司法院大法官解釋（三）（98年10月版）第 315-341 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 219 條 ( 64.07.24 )
解 釋 文：
土地法第二百十九條規定：「徵收私有土地後，不依核准計畫使用，或於徵收完畢一年後不實行使用者，其原土地所有權人得照原徵收價額收回其土地。」所謂「不依核准計畫使用」或「不實行使用」，應依徵收目的所為土地使用之規劃，就所徵收之全部土地整體觀察之，在有明顯事實，足認屬於相關範圍者，不得為割裂之認定，始能符合公用徵收之立法本旨。行政法院六十八年判字第五十二號判例及行政院五十三年六月三十日臺五十三內四五三四號令，即係本此意旨，與憲法第十五條並不牴觸。
理 由 書：
按人民之財產權應予保障，憲法第十五條定有明文。惟基於憲法第二十三條、第一百零八條第一項第十四款及第一百四十三條第一項前段規定之意旨，國家為公用之需要，得依法徵收人民之土地。土地徵收後，需用土地人，即應在一定期限內，依照核准計劃實行使用，以防止徵收權之濫用，而保障人民私有土地權益。故土地法第二百十九條規定：「徵收私有土地後，不依核准計劃使用，或於徵收完畢一年後不實行使用者，其原土地所有權人得照原徵收價額收回其土地」。上述規定所謂「不依核准計劃使用」或「不實行使用」，應依徵收目的所為土地使用之規劃，就所徵收之全部土地整體觀察之，在有明顯事實，足認屬於相關範圍者，不得為割裂之認定，始能符合公用徵收之立法本旨。行政法院六十八年判字第五十二號（行政法院確定判決誤為六十九年判字第五十二號）判例：「土地法第二百十九條所謂『徵收私有土地後，不依核准計劃使用』，係對於所徵收土地之整體不依原核准計劃使用而言，若就徵收之土地已按原核准計劃逐漸使用，雖尚未達到該土地之全部，但與不依核准計劃使用之情形有間，應無該條之適用。」及行政院五十三年六月三十日台五十三內四五三四號令：「需地機關是否已於徵收完畢一年後實行使用之認定，應以該項徵收土地之整體為準，而不能仍按徵收前之個別原所有權之各個地區以為認定已否實行使用之準據」各等語，即係本此意旨，與憲法第十五條並不牴觸。至徵收土地是否符合法定要件，其徵收之範圍有無逾越必需之限度，乃該徵收處分是否違法之問題；就所徵收之土地，於如何情形下，始為依核准計劃為整體之使用，乃具體案件事實認定事項；又原土地所有權人依土地法第二百十九條主張收回其土地，有無期間之限制，均不在本件憲法解釋範圍內，併此說明。
J. Y. Interpretation No.236
Date 1989.3.17
Issue
According to the legal requirements of Article 219 of the Land Act, shall the timely use of lands condemned in accordance with an approved plan be judged from the progress of use for the entire package of land or from the use of discrete parcels in a piecemeal fashion?
Holding
Article 219 of the Land Act prescribes: “ If, after condemnation of privately owned land, a government agency does not use said land in accordance with an approved plan, or does not carry out the plan within a year, the original owner is entitled to buy back his/her land by paying said agency the same amount he/she received as compensation. “ Not use in accordance with an approved plan ” or “ not carry out the plan ” shall be determined by the scheme of use to achieve the condemnation goal, taking the entire condemnation package as a whole into account. Where there is clear evidence to support a finding that the land in question belongs to an integral plan, the determination ought to be made discretely in order to conform to the legislative intent of eminent domain. The Precedent P.T. No.52 (Ad. Ct., 1979) and the Executive Order No.T.53 N.4534 (Executive Yuan, June 30, 1964) agree with the foregoing in spirit and are not contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution.
Reasoning
The right of property shall be guaranteed to the people, which is made explicit in Article 15 of the Constitution, whereas the state can condemn private land for public purpose under the authority of Article 23, Article108-I (14), and Article 143-I (first part) of the Constitution. After such condemnation, the agency that has acquired the land shall, within the specified time frame, use said land in accordance with an approved plan to prevent abuse of eminent domain and to protect private ownership. Hence, Section 219 of the Land Act prescribes: “ After condemnation of private land, if the agency that acquired the land does not use said land in accordance with an approved plan, or does not carry out the plan within a year, the original owner is entitled to buy back his/her land by paying said agency the same amount he/she received as compensation. The aforementioned requirements “ not use in accordance with an approved plan ” or “ not carry out the plan ” shall be determined by the scheme of use to achieve the expropriation goal, taking the entire condemnation package as a whole into account. Where there is clear evidence to support a finding that the land in question belongs to an integral plan, the determination ought to be made discretely in order to conform to the legislative intent of eminent domain. The Precedent P.T. No.52 (Ad. Ct., 1979, erroneously cited as 1980 in the Final Judgment) states: “ The stipulation -- not use in accordance with an approved plan after condemnation of private land -- prescribed in Article 219 of the Land Act is for violation of approved use of the entire condemnation package. Where the land has been put into use gradually in accordance with an approved plan but the process has not been completed, it cannot reasonably be deemed a violation for non-use and said Article shall have no application. ” Executive Order No.T.53 N.4534 (Executive Yuan, June 30, 1964) states: “ Whether the agency that acquired the land has carried out the plan within one year of condemnation shall be judged from the use of the entire condemnation package and not from the use of discrete parcels in a piecemeal fashion. ” These statements are consistent with the spirit of the legislation and not contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution.
Whether the condemnation complies with legal requirements, as well as whether the size of the condemnation package exceeds the actual need are questions concerning the legality of condemnation action; and under what circumstances the use of the condemned land is deemed an integral use of the approved plan is an ad hoc factual determination. The abovementioned issues and the issue of whether there is a statute of limitation to preclude the original owner from reclaiming property under Article 219 of the Land Act are all beyond the scope of this Interpretation.
'Translated by Huai-Ching Tsai, Esq.
解釋字號：釋字第 236 號
解釋日期：民國 78 年 03 月 17 日
解釋爭點：
行政法院判例及行政院令，分就徵收之土地應如何認定其是否依計畫使用所為之闡釋，是否合憲？
資料來源：
司法院大法官會議解釋續編（四）第 114 頁
司法院公報 第 31 卷 4 期 5-17 頁
司法院大法官解釋（三）（98年10月版）第 315-341 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 219 條 ( 64.07.24 )
解 釋 文：
土地法第二百十九條規定：「徵收私有土地後，不依核准計畫使用，或於徵收完畢一年後不實行使用者，其原土地所有權人得照原徵收價額收回其土地。」所謂「不依核准計畫使用」或「不實行使用」，應依徵收目的所為土地使用之規劃，就所徵收之全部土地整體觀察之，在有明顯事實，足認屬於相關範圍者，不得為割裂之認定，始能符合公用徵收之立法本旨。行政法院六十八年判字第五十二號判例及行政院五十三年六月三十日臺五十三內四五三四號令，即係本此意旨，與憲法第十五條並不牴觸。
理 由 書：
按人民之財產權應予保障，憲法第十五條定有明文。惟基於憲法第二十三條、第一百零八條第一項第十四款及第一百四十三條第一項前段規定之意旨，國家為公用之需要，得依法徵收人民之土地。土地徵收後，需用土地人，即應在一定期限內，依照核准計劃實行使用，以防止徵收權之濫用，而保障人民私有土地權益。故土地法第二百十九條規定：「徵收私有土地後，不依核准計劃使用，或於徵收完畢一年後不實行使用者，其原土地所有權人得照原徵收價額收回其土地」。上述規定所謂「不依核准計劃使用」或「不實行使用」，應依徵收目的所為土地使用之規劃，就所徵收之全部土地整體觀察之，在有明顯事實，足認屬於相關範圍者，不得為割裂之認定，始能符合公用徵收之立法本旨。行政法院六十八年判字第五十二號（行政法院確定判決誤為六十九年判字第五十二號）判例：「土地法第二百十九條所謂『徵收私有土地後，不依核准計劃使用』，係對於所徵收土地之整體不依原核准計劃使用而言，若就徵收之土地已按原核准計劃逐漸使用，雖尚未達到該土地之全部，但與不依核准計劃使用之情形有間，應無該條之適用。」及行政院五十三年六月三十日台五十三內四五三四號令：「需地機關是否已於徵收完畢一年後實行使用之認定，應以該項徵收土地之整體為準，而不能仍按徵收前之個別原所有權之各個地區以為認定已否實行使用之準據」各等語，即係本此意旨，與憲法第十五條並不牴觸。至徵收土地是否符合法定要件，其徵收之範圍有無逾越必需之限度，乃該徵收處分是否違法之問題；就所徵收之土地，於如何情形下，始為依核准計劃為整體之使用，乃具體案件事實認定事項；又原土地所有權人依土地法第二百十九條主張收回其土地，有無期間之限制，均不在本件憲法解釋範圍內，併此說明。
J. Y. Interpretation No.236
Date 1989.3.17
Issue
According to the legal requirements of Article 219 of the Land Act, shall the timely use of lands condemned in accordance with an approved plan be judged from the progress of use for the entire package of land or from the use of discrete parcels in a piecemeal fashion?
Holding
Article 219 of the Land Act prescribes: “ If, after condemnation of privately owned land, a government agency does not use said land in accordance with an approved plan, or does not carry out the plan within a year, the original owner is entitled to buy back his/her land by paying said agency the same amount he/she received as compensation. “ Not use in accordance with an approved plan ” or “ not carry out the plan ” shall be determined by the scheme of use to achieve the condemnation goal, taking the entire condemnation package as a whole into account. Where there is clear evidence to support a finding that the land in question belongs to an integral plan, the determination ought to be made discretely in order to conform to the legislative intent of eminent domain. The Precedent P.T. No.52 (Ad. Ct., 1979) and the Executive Order No.T.53 N.4534 (Executive Yuan, June 30, 1964) agree with the foregoing in spirit and are not contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution.
Reasoning
The right of property shall be guaranteed to the people, which is made explicit in Article 15 of the Constitution, whereas the state can condemn private land for public purpose under the authority of Article 23, Article108-I (14), and Article 143-I (first part) of the Constitution. After such condemnation, the agency that has acquired the land shall, within the specified time frame, use said land in accordance with an approved plan to prevent abuse of eminent domain and to protect private ownership. Hence, Section 219 of the Land Act prescribes: “ After condemnation of private land, if the agency that acquired the land does not use said land in accordance with an approved plan, or does not carry out the plan within a year, the original owner is entitled to buy back his/her land by paying said agency the same amount he/she received as compensation. The aforementioned requirements “ not use in accordance with an approved plan ” or “ not carry out the plan ” shall be determined by the scheme of use to achieve the expropriation goal, taking the entire condemnation package as a whole into account. Where there is clear evidence to support a finding that the land in question belongs to an integral plan, the determination ought to be made discretely in order to conform to the legislative intent of eminent domain. The Precedent P.T. No.52 (Ad. Ct., 1979, erroneously cited as 1980 in the Final Judgment) states: “ The stipulation -- not use in accordance with an approved plan after condemnation of private land -- prescribed in Article 219 of the Land Act is for violation of approved use of the entire condemnation package. Where the land has been put into use gradually in accordance with an approved plan but the process has not been completed, it cannot reasonably be deemed a violation for non-use and said Article shall have no application. ” Executive Order No.T.53 N.4534 (Executive Yuan, June 30, 1964) states: “ Whether the agency that acquired the land has carried out the plan within one year of condemnation shall be judged from the use of the entire condemnation package and not from the use of discrete parcels in a piecemeal fashion. ” These statements are consistent with the spirit of the legislation and not contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution.
Whether the condemnation complies with legal requirements, as well as whether the size of the condemnation package exceeds the actual need are questions concerning the legality of condemnation action; and under what circumstances the use of the condemned land is deemed an integral use of the approved plan is an ad hoc factual determination. The abovementioned issues and the issue of whether there is a statute of limitation to preclude the original owner from reclaiming property under Article 219 of the Land Act are all beyond the scope of this Interpretation.
'Translated by Huai-Ching Tsai, Esq.
今日瀏覽人數：16599 總瀏覽人數：9683326
|
帝謙高雄法律事務所 | 關於高雄律師 | 高雄法律顧問 | 高雄律師服務項目 | 不動產律師 | 高雄律師專欄 | 高雄律師法律諮詢 | 高雄律師最新消息 | 聯絡高雄律師 |
|
電話：(07)558-9090 傳真：(07)558-9010 地址：813 高雄市左營區明華一路350號11樓之2  Copyright © 2013-2015 Deep-Change Law Firm, All Rights Reserved 網頁設計:uuTaiwan |
友情連結 |
帝謙法律事務所是國內專業的律師事務所，我們提供專業的法律諮詢、民事訴訟、刑事訴訟、行政訴訟訴願、保險理賠、撰寫存證信函、律師信函、不動產法律、遺產繼承規劃、常年法律顧問、契約撰擬…及其他法律專案，高雄律師團隊經驗豐富、辦案認真，積極處理並以同理心處理每個客戶所委託的案件。