重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(24)】內政部關於要求一併徵收土地殘餘部分者，應於徵收完畢一年內為之之函釋合憲。
2014.3.25 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位： 司法院
解釋字號： 釋字第 322 號
解釋日期： 民國 82 年 06 月 18 日
解釋爭點：
內政部關於要求一併徵收土地殘餘部分者，應於徵收完畢一年內為之之函釋，是否合憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 35 卷 8 期 26-29 頁
司法院大法官解釋（五）（98年10月版）第 407-413 頁
相關法條：
土地法 第 217、219 條 ( 78.12.29 )
解 釋 文：
中華民國三十五年四月二十九日修正公布之土地法第二百十七條規定：「徵收土地之殘餘部分面積過小，或形勢不整，致不能為相當之使用時，所有權人得要求一併徵收」，對於要求一併徵收之期間未予明定，內政部為貫徹同法第二百十九條關於徵收完畢後限一年內使用之意旨，六十八年十月九日臺內地字第三○二七四號函謂：「要求一併徵收，宜自協議時起，迄於徵收完畢一年內為之，逾期應不受理」，係為執行上開土地法第二百十七條所心要，與憲法並無牴觸。
理 由 書：
中華民國三十五年四月二十九日修正公布之土地法第二百十七條規定：「徵收土地之殘餘面積過小，或形勢不整，致不能為相當之使用時，所有權人得要求一併徵收」，對於要求一併徵收之期間則未予明定，惟同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」（上述土地法條文均已於七十八年十二月二十九日修正），是以土地所有權人要求一併徵收，自不能無期間之限制，其期間亦不能較第二百十九條所定者為長，否則需地機關無從於法定期間內依核准之徵收計畫實行使用，於增進公共利益，迅速確定人民權利，均有妨礙，內政部為貫徹上開第二百十九條之意旨，六十八年十月九日臺內地字第三○二七四號函謂：「要求一併徵收，宜自協議時起，迄於徵收完畢一年內為之，逾期應不受理」，係為執行上開土地法第二百十七條所必要，與憲法並無牴觸。
該會議由司法院林院長洋港擔任主席，大法官史錫恩、翁岳生、張承韜、陳瑞堂、劉鐵錚、吳庚、翟紹先、鄭健才、馬漢寶、李志鵬、楊建華、楊與齡、李鐘聲、楊日然出席，秘書長葛義才列席；會中通過之解釋文、解釋理由書及不同意見書均經該院以院令公布。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 322
Date 1993.06.18
Issue
Is it constitutional for the Ministry of Interior to require that an ancillary request that the government also expropriate odd-lot land be made within a year from the completion of the expropriation proceedings?
Holding
Article 217 of the Land Law, as amended on April 29, 1946, provides that, where the land to be expropriated in an eminent domain proceeding involves residual, odd-lot space that is too small or of such an unusual shape as to allow reasonable use, the owner of the land may request that such land also be expropriated. But there is no explicit provision regarding the deadline for this ancillary request for expropriation. To fulfill the legislative purpose for completing the expropriation within one year under Article 219 of the same law, the Ministry of Interior in its letter dated October 9, 1979, stated that, “ in the case of an ancillary request, it is appropriate that such request be made within the period extending from one year after the beginning of negotiations until one year after the completion of the expropriation, without further extension of time to entertain such request. This rule is necessary so as to fulfill the requirements of Article 217 of the Land Law cited above, and is therefore not in contravention of the Constitution.
Reasoning
Article 217 of the Land Law, as amended on April 29, 1946, provides that, where the land to be expropriated in an eminent domain proceeding involves residual, odd-lot space that is too small or of such an unusual shape as to allow reasonable use, the owner of the land may request that such land also be expropriated. But there is no explicit provision regarding the deadline for this ancillary request for expropriation. Nevertheless, Article 219 of the same law provides that, where there is no approved use of the expropriated private land, or where the expropriated land is not put to use within one year from the completion of the expropriation, the original owner of the land may repurchase the land at the expropriation price. As a result, it obviously is not permissible to provide no deadline for owners of land to make an ancillary request. (The above-cited provision was amended on December 29, 1989.) Otherwise, land administration agencies will be unable to put the expropriated land to approved use within such statutory deadline. Such a result would obstruct the public interest and expeditious determination of the right of citizens. To fulfill the legislative purpose for completing the expropriation within one year under Article 219 of the same law, the Ministry of Interior in its letter dated October 9, 1979, stated that, “ in the case of an ancillary request, it is appropriate that such request be made within the period extending from one year after the beginning of negotiations until one year after the completion of the expropriation, without further extension of time to entertain such request. ” This rule is necessary so as to fulfill the requirements of Article 217 of the Land Law cited above, and is therefore not in contravention of the Constitution.
'Translated by Lawrence S. Liu.
解釋字號： 釋字第 322 號
解釋日期： 民國 82 年 06 月 18 日
解釋爭點：
內政部關於要求一併徵收土地殘餘部分者，應於徵收完畢一年內為之之函釋，是否合憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 35 卷 8 期 26-29 頁
司法院大法官解釋（五）（98年10月版）第 407-413 頁
相關法條：
土地法 第 217、219 條 ( 78.12.29 )
解 釋 文：
中華民國三十五年四月二十九日修正公布之土地法第二百十七條規定：「徵收土地之殘餘部分面積過小，或形勢不整，致不能為相當之使用時，所有權人得要求一併徵收」，對於要求一併徵收之期間未予明定，內政部為貫徹同法第二百十九條關於徵收完畢後限一年內使用之意旨，六十八年十月九日臺內地字第三○二七四號函謂：「要求一併徵收，宜自協議時起，迄於徵收完畢一年內為之，逾期應不受理」，係為執行上開土地法第二百十七條所心要，與憲法並無牴觸。
理 由 書：
中華民國三十五年四月二十九日修正公布之土地法第二百十七條規定：「徵收土地之殘餘面積過小，或形勢不整，致不能為相當之使用時，所有權人得要求一併徵收」，對於要求一併徵收之期間則未予明定，惟同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」（上述土地法條文均已於七十八年十二月二十九日修正），是以土地所有權人要求一併徵收，自不能無期間之限制，其期間亦不能較第二百十九條所定者為長，否則需地機關無從於法定期間內依核准之徵收計畫實行使用，於增進公共利益，迅速確定人民權利，均有妨礙，內政部為貫徹上開第二百十九條之意旨，六十八年十月九日臺內地字第三○二七四號函謂：「要求一併徵收，宜自協議時起，迄於徵收完畢一年內為之，逾期應不受理」，係為執行上開土地法第二百十七條所必要，與憲法並無牴觸。
該會議由司法院林院長洋港擔任主席，大法官史錫恩、翁岳生、張承韜、陳瑞堂、劉鐵錚、吳庚、翟紹先、鄭健才、馬漢寶、李志鵬、楊建華、楊與齡、李鐘聲、楊日然出席，秘書長葛義才列席；會中通過之解釋文、解釋理由書及不同意見書均經該院以院令公布。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 322
Date 1993.06.18
Issue
Is it constitutional for the Ministry of Interior to require that an ancillary request that the government also expropriate odd-lot land be made within a year from the completion of the expropriation proceedings?
Holding
Article 217 of the Land Law, as amended on April 29, 1946, provides that, where the land to be expropriated in an eminent domain proceeding involves residual, odd-lot space that is too small or of such an unusual shape as to allow reasonable use, the owner of the land may request that such land also be expropriated. But there is no explicit provision regarding the deadline for this ancillary request for expropriation. To fulfill the legislative purpose for completing the expropriation within one year under Article 219 of the same law, the Ministry of Interior in its letter dated October 9, 1979, stated that, “ in the case of an ancillary request, it is appropriate that such request be made within the period extending from one year after the beginning of negotiations until one year after the completion of the expropriation, without further extension of time to entertain such request. This rule is necessary so as to fulfill the requirements of Article 217 of the Land Law cited above, and is therefore not in contravention of the Constitution.
Reasoning
Article 217 of the Land Law, as amended on April 29, 1946, provides that, where the land to be expropriated in an eminent domain proceeding involves residual, odd-lot space that is too small or of such an unusual shape as to allow reasonable use, the owner of the land may request that such land also be expropriated. But there is no explicit provision regarding the deadline for this ancillary request for expropriation. Nevertheless, Article 219 of the same law provides that, where there is no approved use of the expropriated private land, or where the expropriated land is not put to use within one year from the completion of the expropriation, the original owner of the land may repurchase the land at the expropriation price. As a result, it obviously is not permissible to provide no deadline for owners of land to make an ancillary request. (The above-cited provision was amended on December 29, 1989.) Otherwise, land administration agencies will be unable to put the expropriated land to approved use within such statutory deadline. Such a result would obstruct the public interest and expeditious determination of the right of citizens. To fulfill the legislative purpose for completing the expropriation within one year under Article 219 of the same law, the Ministry of Interior in its letter dated October 9, 1979, stated that, “ in the case of an ancillary request, it is appropriate that such request be made within the period extending from one year after the beginning of negotiations until one year after the completion of the expropriation, without further extension of time to entertain such request. ” This rule is necessary so as to fulfill the requirements of Article 217 of the Land Law cited above, and is therefore not in contravention of the Constitution.
'Translated by Lawrence S. Liu.
今日瀏覽人數：7664 總瀏覽人數：9570647
|
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。