重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(40)】都市計畫區內之非公共設施用地，得否未經都市計畫變更程序，逕予徵收？
2014.4.15 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位： 司法院
解釋字號： 釋字第 513 號
解釋日期： 民國 89 年 09 月 29 日
解釋爭點：
都市計畫區內之非公共設施用地，得否未經都市計畫變更程序，逕予徵收？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 42 卷 11 期 18-28 頁
司法院大法官解釋（十三）（99年5月版）第 398-416 頁
總統府公報 第 6366 號 15-28 頁
相關法條：
土地徵收條例 第 4 條 ( 89.02.02 )
都市計畫法 第 1、52 條 ( 89.01.26 )
解 釋 文：
都市計畫法制定之目的，依其第一條規定，係為改善居民生活環境，並促進市、鎮、鄉街有計畫之均衡發展。都市計畫一經公告確定，即發生規範之效力。除法律別有規定外，各級政府所為土地之使用或徵收，自應符合已確定之都市計畫，若為增進公共利益之需要，固得徵收都市計畫區域內之土地，惟因其涉及對人民財產權之剝奪，應嚴守法定徵收土地之要件、踐行其程序，並遵照都市計畫法之相關規定。都市計畫法第五十二條前段：「都市計畫範圍內，各級政府徵收私有土地或撥用公有土地，不得妨礙當地都市計畫。」依其規範意旨，中央或地方興建公共設施，須徵收都市計畫中原非公共設施用地之私有土地時，自應先踐行變更都市計畫之程序，再予徵收，未經變更都市計畫即遽行徵收非公共設施用地之私有土地者，與上開規定有違。其依土地法辦理徵收未依法公告或不遵守法定三十日期間者，自不生徵收之效力。若因徵收之公告記載日期與實際公告不符，致計算發生差異者，非以公告文載明之公告日期，而仍以實際公告日期為準，故應於實際徵收公告期間屆滿三十日時發生效力。
理 由 書：
都市計畫法制定之目的，依其第一條規定，係為改善居民生活環境，並促進市、鎮、鄉街有計畫之均衡發展。都市計畫一經公告確定，即發生規範之效力。除法律別有規定外，各級政府所為土地之使用或徵收，自應符合已確定之都市計畫，若為增進公共利益之需要，固得徵收都市計畫區域內之土地，惟因其涉及對人民財產權之剝奪，應嚴守法定徵收土地之要件、踐行其程序，並遵照都市計畫法之相關規定，以實現都市計畫之目的。
都市計畫法第五十二條前段規定：「都市計畫範圍內，各級政府徵收私有土地或撥用公有土地，不得妨礙當地都市計畫。」旨在管制土地使用分區及藉由計畫引導建設發展，對土地使用一經合理規劃而公告確定，各級政府在徵收土地作為公共設施用地時，即應就是否為其事業所必要及有無妨礙需用土地之都市計畫詳加審查。是中央或地方興建公共設施，須徵收都市計畫範圍內原非公共設施用地之私有土地時，除法律另有規定 (例如土地徵收條例第四條第二項 )外，應先踐行變更都市計畫之程序，再予徵收，未經變更都市計畫即遽行徵收非公共設施用地之私有土地者，與上開規定有違，此一徵收行為性質上屬於有瑕疵之行政處分，如何救濟，乃另一問題。
依土地法辦理徵收未依法公告或不遵守法定三十日期間者，自不生徵收之效力。若因徵收之公告記載日期與實際公告不符，致計算發生差異者，非以公告文載明之公告日期，而仍以實際公告日期為準，故應於實際徵收公告期間屆滿三十日時發生效力。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 513
Date 2000.9.29
Issue
Is it legal for governments to expropriate privately owned land not designated for public facilities in an urban plan without changing the urban plan first?
Holding
The legislative purpose of the Urban Planning Law is to improve people’s living environment and to help coordinate developments in cities, towns and villages by planning. An urban plan, once publicly declared and finalized, has immediate binding force. Unless exceptions are set forth by law, governments of all levels should use or expropriate land without conflicting with such plan. For the necessity of enhancing public interests, governments may expropriate land within the urban plan. However, governments should strictly comply with expropriation-related requirements, procedures and other rules of the Urban Planning Law, because expropriation directly affects the people’s property rights. The former part of Article 52 provides that, “Within the scope of an urban plan, governments of all levels may expropriate privately owned land or use publicly owned land, but the actions taken should not conflict with the concerned urban plan.” According to the spirit of this provision, whenever central or local governments, in order to construct public facilities, have to expropriate privately owned lands which are not designated for public facilities in the urban plan, they have to change the urban plan first and expropriate such lands later. It is against the law for governments to expropriate privately owned land without changing the urban plan first. The expropriations made pursuant to the Land Law, with no legal public notice or without abiding by the thirty-day requirement, have no legal effect of expropriation. If there is any inconsistency between the day of public notice in fact and the day stated in the notice, the day of public notice in law should be the day in fact, not the day stated in the notice. Therefore, the expropriation comes into effect after thirty days beginning with the day of public notice in fact.
Reasoning
The legislative purpose of the Urban Planning Law is to improve people’s living environment and to help coordinate developments in cities, towns and villages by planning. An urban plan, once publicly declared and finalized, has immediate binding force. Unless exceptions are set forth by law, governments of all levels should use or expropriate land without conflicting with the plan. In order to enhance public interests, governments may expropriate land within the urban plan. However, governments should strictly comply with expropriation-related requirements, procedures and other rules of the Urban Planning Law, because expropriation directly affects the people’s property rights.
The former part of Article 52 provides that, “Within the scope of an urban plan, governments of all levels may expropriate privately owned land or use publicly owned land, but the actions taken should not conflict with the concerned urban plan.” The purpose of this provision is to regulate land zoning and to facilitate construction and development via the plan. The usage of land is finalized once the plan has been publicly announced. Governments of all levels should elaborately review the necessity for constructing public facilities and avoid any possible disruption of the urban plan when they are making decisions on whether to expropriate privately owned land for constructing such facilities. Therefore, unless exceptions are set forth by law (See Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Statute on Land Expropriation), whenever central or local governments, in order to construct public facilities, have to expropriate privately owned lands which are not designated for public facilities in the urban plan, they have to change the urban plan first and expropriate such lands later. It is against the law for governments to expropriate privately owned land without changing the urban plan first. This type of expropriation is a defective administrative act. How to remedy this defect, however, is not in question here.
The expropriations pursuant to the Land Law, with no legal public notice or without abiding by the thirty-day requirement, have no legal effect of expropriation. If there is any inconsistency between the day of public notice in fact and the day stated in the notice, the day of public notice in law should be the day in fact not the day stated in the notice. Therefore, the expropriation comes into effect after thirty days beginning with the day of public notice in fact.
' Translated by Professor Tze-Shiou Chien.
解釋字號： 釋字第 513 號
解釋日期： 民國 89 年 09 月 29 日
解釋爭點：
都市計畫區內之非公共設施用地，得否未經都市計畫變更程序，逕予徵收？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 42 卷 11 期 18-28 頁
司法院大法官解釋（十三）（99年5月版）第 398-416 頁
總統府公報 第 6366 號 15-28 頁
相關法條：
土地徵收條例 第 4 條 ( 89.02.02 )
都市計畫法 第 1、52 條 ( 89.01.26 )
解 釋 文：
都市計畫法制定之目的，依其第一條規定，係為改善居民生活環境，並促進市、鎮、鄉街有計畫之均衡發展。都市計畫一經公告確定，即發生規範之效力。除法律別有規定外，各級政府所為土地之使用或徵收，自應符合已確定之都市計畫，若為增進公共利益之需要，固得徵收都市計畫區域內之土地，惟因其涉及對人民財產權之剝奪，應嚴守法定徵收土地之要件、踐行其程序，並遵照都市計畫法之相關規定。都市計畫法第五十二條前段：「都市計畫範圍內，各級政府徵收私有土地或撥用公有土地，不得妨礙當地都市計畫。」依其規範意旨，中央或地方興建公共設施，須徵收都市計畫中原非公共設施用地之私有土地時，自應先踐行變更都市計畫之程序，再予徵收，未經變更都市計畫即遽行徵收非公共設施用地之私有土地者，與上開規定有違。其依土地法辦理徵收未依法公告或不遵守法定三十日期間者，自不生徵收之效力。若因徵收之公告記載日期與實際公告不符，致計算發生差異者，非以公告文載明之公告日期，而仍以實際公告日期為準，故應於實際徵收公告期間屆滿三十日時發生效力。
理 由 書：
都市計畫法制定之目的，依其第一條規定，係為改善居民生活環境，並促進市、鎮、鄉街有計畫之均衡發展。都市計畫一經公告確定，即發生規範之效力。除法律別有規定外，各級政府所為土地之使用或徵收，自應符合已確定之都市計畫，若為增進公共利益之需要，固得徵收都市計畫區域內之土地，惟因其涉及對人民財產權之剝奪，應嚴守法定徵收土地之要件、踐行其程序，並遵照都市計畫法之相關規定，以實現都市計畫之目的。
都市計畫法第五十二條前段規定：「都市計畫範圍內，各級政府徵收私有土地或撥用公有土地，不得妨礙當地都市計畫。」旨在管制土地使用分區及藉由計畫引導建設發展，對土地使用一經合理規劃而公告確定，各級政府在徵收土地作為公共設施用地時，即應就是否為其事業所必要及有無妨礙需用土地之都市計畫詳加審查。是中央或地方興建公共設施，須徵收都市計畫範圍內原非公共設施用地之私有土地時，除法律另有規定 (例如土地徵收條例第四條第二項 )外，應先踐行變更都市計畫之程序，再予徵收，未經變更都市計畫即遽行徵收非公共設施用地之私有土地者，與上開規定有違，此一徵收行為性質上屬於有瑕疵之行政處分，如何救濟，乃另一問題。
依土地法辦理徵收未依法公告或不遵守法定三十日期間者，自不生徵收之效力。若因徵收之公告記載日期與實際公告不符，致計算發生差異者，非以公告文載明之公告日期，而仍以實際公告日期為準，故應於實際徵收公告期間屆滿三十日時發生效力。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 513
Date 2000.9.29
Issue
Is it legal for governments to expropriate privately owned land not designated for public facilities in an urban plan without changing the urban plan first?
Holding
The legislative purpose of the Urban Planning Law is to improve people’s living environment and to help coordinate developments in cities, towns and villages by planning. An urban plan, once publicly declared and finalized, has immediate binding force. Unless exceptions are set forth by law, governments of all levels should use or expropriate land without conflicting with such plan. For the necessity of enhancing public interests, governments may expropriate land within the urban plan. However, governments should strictly comply with expropriation-related requirements, procedures and other rules of the Urban Planning Law, because expropriation directly affects the people’s property rights. The former part of Article 52 provides that, “Within the scope of an urban plan, governments of all levels may expropriate privately owned land or use publicly owned land, but the actions taken should not conflict with the concerned urban plan.” According to the spirit of this provision, whenever central or local governments, in order to construct public facilities, have to expropriate privately owned lands which are not designated for public facilities in the urban plan, they have to change the urban plan first and expropriate such lands later. It is against the law for governments to expropriate privately owned land without changing the urban plan first. The expropriations made pursuant to the Land Law, with no legal public notice or without abiding by the thirty-day requirement, have no legal effect of expropriation. If there is any inconsistency between the day of public notice in fact and the day stated in the notice, the day of public notice in law should be the day in fact, not the day stated in the notice. Therefore, the expropriation comes into effect after thirty days beginning with the day of public notice in fact.
Reasoning
The legislative purpose of the Urban Planning Law is to improve people’s living environment and to help coordinate developments in cities, towns and villages by planning. An urban plan, once publicly declared and finalized, has immediate binding force. Unless exceptions are set forth by law, governments of all levels should use or expropriate land without conflicting with the plan. In order to enhance public interests, governments may expropriate land within the urban plan. However, governments should strictly comply with expropriation-related requirements, procedures and other rules of the Urban Planning Law, because expropriation directly affects the people’s property rights.
The former part of Article 52 provides that, “Within the scope of an urban plan, governments of all levels may expropriate privately owned land or use publicly owned land, but the actions taken should not conflict with the concerned urban plan.” The purpose of this provision is to regulate land zoning and to facilitate construction and development via the plan. The usage of land is finalized once the plan has been publicly announced. Governments of all levels should elaborately review the necessity for constructing public facilities and avoid any possible disruption of the urban plan when they are making decisions on whether to expropriate privately owned land for constructing such facilities. Therefore, unless exceptions are set forth by law (See Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Statute on Land Expropriation), whenever central or local governments, in order to construct public facilities, have to expropriate privately owned lands which are not designated for public facilities in the urban plan, they have to change the urban plan first and expropriate such lands later. It is against the law for governments to expropriate privately owned land without changing the urban plan first. This type of expropriation is a defective administrative act. How to remedy this defect, however, is not in question here.
The expropriations pursuant to the Land Law, with no legal public notice or without abiding by the thirty-day requirement, have no legal effect of expropriation. If there is any inconsistency between the day of public notice in fact and the day stated in the notice, the day of public notice in law should be the day in fact not the day stated in the notice. Therefore, the expropriation comes into effect after thirty days beginning with the day of public notice in fact.
' Translated by Professor Tze-Shiou Chien.
今日瀏覽人數：10758 總瀏覽人數：9724136
|
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。