重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(43)】土地法第二百十九條關於徵收之土地因可歸責於原土地所有人或使用人，致未能依限使用者，原土地所有人不得聲請收回土地之規定，是否違憲？
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 534 號
解釋日期： 民國 90 年 11 月 30 日
解釋爭點：
土地法第二百十九條關於徵收之土地因可歸責於原土地所有人或使用人，致未能依限使用者，原土地所有人不得聲請收回土地之規定，是否違憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 44 卷 1 期 8-20 頁
司法院大法官解釋（十四）（99年5月版）第 337-356 頁
總統府公報 第 6439 號 12-28 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23、143 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 215、219、222、224、238 條 ( 90.10.31 )
解 釋 文：
人民依法取得之土地所有權，應受法律之保障與限制，為憲法第一百四十三條第一項所明定。土地徵收係國家因公共事業之需要，對人民受憲法保障之財產權，經由法定程序予以強制取得之謂，相關法律所規定之徵收要件及程序，應符合憲法第二十三條所定必要性之原則。土地法第二百十九條第一項第一款規定，私有土地經徵收後，自徵收補償發給完竣屆滿一年，未依徵收計畫開始使用者，原土地所有權人得於徵收補償發給完竣屆滿一年之次日起五年內，向該管市、縣地政機關 (中華民國八十九年一月二十六日修正為「直轄市或縣 (市) 地政機關」，下同) 聲請照徵收價額收回其土地，原係防止徵收機關為不必要之徵收，或遷延興辦公共事業，特為原土地所有權人保留收回權。是以需用土地機關未於上開期限內，依徵收計畫開始使用徵收之土地者，如係因可歸責於原土地所有權人或為其占有該土地之使用人之事由所致，即不得將遷延使用徵收土地之責任，歸由徵收有關機關負擔；其不能開始使用係因可歸責於其他土地使用人之事由所致，而與原土地所有權人無涉者，若市、縣地政機關未會同有關機關於徵收補償發給完竣一年內，依土地法第二百十五條第三項規定逕行除去改良物，亦未依同法第二百三十八條規定代為遷移改良物，開始使用土地；需用土地人於上開期間內復未依徵收計畫之使用目的提起必要之訴訟，以求救濟，應不妨礙原土地所有權人聲請收回其土地。土地法第二百十九條第三項規定之適用，於上開意旨範圍內，不生牴觸憲法之問題。
理 由 書：
人民依法取得之土地所有權，應受法律之保障與限制，為憲法第一百四十三條第一項所明定。土地徵收係國家因公共事業之需要，對人民受憲法保障之財產權，經由法定程序予以強制取得之謂，相關法律所規定之徵收要件及程序，應符合憲法第二十三條所定必要性之原則。需用土地人依土地法所定徵收程序辦理徵收時，應預先依土地法第二百二十四條規定擬具詳細徵收計畫書，附具相關文書，依同法第二百二十二條規定聲請核辦，於合法取得人民之私有土地所有權後，即應按照徵收計畫開始使用，以實現公用需要之徵收目的。土地法第二百十九條第一項第一款規定，私有土地經徵收後，自徵收補償發給完竣屆滿一年，未依徵收計畫開始使用者，原土地所有權人得於徵收補償發給完竣屆滿一年之次日起五年內，向該管市、縣地政機關聲請照徵收價額收回其土地，即係防止徵收機關對不必要之徵收或未盡周詳之徵收計畫率行核准、或需用土地人遷延興辦公共事業，致有違徵收之正當性或必要性，因而特為原所有權人保留收回權。
需用土地人未於上開一年期限內，依徵收計畫開始使用徵收之土地，如係因可歸責於原土地所有權人或為其占有該土地之使用人之事由所致，即不得將遷延使用徵收土地之責任，歸由需用土地人負擔；其不能開始使用係因可歸責於其他土地使用人之事由所致，而與原土地所有權人無涉者，若市、縣地政機關未會同有關機關於徵收補償發給完竣一年內，依土地法第二百十五條第三項規定逕行除去改良物，亦未依同法第二百三十八條規定代為遷移，開始使用土地；需用土地人於市、縣地政機關在上開期間內怠於行使公權力而為強制執行時，復未依徵收計畫之使用目的提起必要之訴訟，以求救濟，是以市、縣地政機關既未積極推行計畫內容，需用土地人又怠於行使權利，此際原土地所有權人若不得聲請收回土地，不啻將此不利益歸由原土地所有權人負擔，自應不妨礙收回權之行使。土地法第二百十九條第三項規定之適用，於上開意旨範圍內不生牴觸憲法問題。又本件聲請人據以聲請解釋涉及之土地經徵收後，如依本解釋意旨，得聲請收回其土地時，若在本解釋公布前，其土地已開始使用，闢為公用財產而為不融通物者，倘其收回於公益有重大損害，原土地所有權人即不得聲請收回土地，惟得比照開始使用時之徵收價額，依法請求補償相當之金額，併此說明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 534
Date 2001.11.30
Issue
Is the law, which provides that in the case where private land has been expropriated but not utilized within one year after payment of expropriation compensation, the original owner may exercise the right of redemption within a five-year period provided that utilization of the land is not prevented by the original owner and other land users unrelated to the owner, in conflict with the constitutional protection of the people's property right?
Holding
The protection and restriction of the people's right to legally acquired land ownership are provided for in Article 143, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution. Expropriations of land are compulsory acquisitions by the government, through lawful procedures, for public utility purposes. The criteria and procedures for expropriation must conform to the principle of necessity stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution. Article 219, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, of the Land Act provides that where private lands are expropriated but not yet utilized according to the plans, within one year after payment of expropriation compensation, the original land owners may redeem their lands at the expropriation price by applying to the relevant municipal or county land authorities (or the land authorities of municipalities governed by the central government and land authorities of other municipalities and counties, as amended on January 26, 2000) within the statutory period of five years commencing from the day following the said one-year period. The purpose for reserving the right to redeem expropriated lands to land owners is to prevent unnecessary expropriations or delays in constructing public utility. Therefore, where the organization intending to use the expropriated land (the "intended land user") fails to utilize the land within the one-year period according to the expropriation plan, and such failure can be attributed to the landowner or persons occupying the land on behalf of the owner, then the relevant authorities cannot be held responsible for the delay. On the other hand, if, due to no fault of the landowner, utilization of the land is prevented by other land users unrelated to the owner, then the landowner shall not be deprived of the right to redeem his/her land, provided, however, that the municipal, county and relevant land authorities fail to, within the said one-year period, remove land improvements on their own account and on the land owner's account under Article 215, Paragraph 3, and Article 238 of the Land Act, and that the intended land users fail to commence an action for compensation within the one-year period. The application of Article 219, Paragraph 3, of the Land Act falls within the scope of the foregoing explanation and does not contravene the Constitution.
Reasoning
The protection and restriction of the people's right to legally acquired land ownership are provided for in Article 143, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution. Expropriations of land are compulsory acquisitions by the government, through lawful procedures, for public utility purposes. The criteria and procedures for expropriation must conform to the principle of necessity stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution. The intended land users should, when expropriating lands pursuant to the procedures set by the Land Act, draft a detailed expropriation plan accompanied by relevant documents and apply for an approval in accordance with Articles 222 and 224, respectively, of the Land Act. Once the intended land users have thereby acquired ownership of the private land, they should commence utilizing the land according to their plans in order to achieve the purpose for expropriation, that is, public utility. Article 219, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, of the Land Act provides that where private lands are expropriated but not yet utilized, according to the plans, within one year after payment of expropriation compensation, then the original land owners may redeem their lands at the expropriation price by applying to the relevant municipal or county land authorities within the statutory period of five years commencing from the day following the said one-year period. The purpose for reserving the right to redeem expropriated lands for land owners is to prevent approvals of unnecessary or inappropriate expropriation plans by the expropriation authorities and/or delays in constructing public utilities by intended land users which are in conflict with the appropriateness and necessity of expropriation.
Therefore, where the intended land users fail to utilize the land within the said one-year period according to the expropriation plan, and such failure can be attributed to the landowner or persons occupying the land on behalf of the owner, then the relevant authorities cannot be held responsible for the delay. On the other hand, if, due to no fault of the landowner, utilization of the land is prevented by other land users unrelated to the owner, then the landowner shall not be deprived of the right to redeem his/her land, provided, however that the municipal, county and relevant land authorities fail to, within the said one-year period, remove land improvements and commence utilizing the land on their own account and on the land owner's account under Article 215, Paragraph 3, and Article 238 of the Land Act. The reason for the foregoing is that it is unreasonable to deny the original land owners the right to redeem when the intended land users fail to initiate an action for compensation against the relevant land authorities' delay in exercising their powers of expropriation within the said one-year period. That is, the original land owners shall not be responsible for the municipal and county land authorities' lack of initiative in executing the plan or the intended land users' failure to exercise their rights. The application of Article 219, Paragraph 3, of the Land Act falls within the scope of the foregoing explanation and does not contravene the Constitution. The expropriated land that is the subject of the application for this Interpretation may not be redeemed by the original land owner by application according to this Interpretation if, before this Interpretation is promulgated, the land has been utilized and classified as a public asset inaccessible to private citizens, and its redemption by the owner will be severely detrimental to public interests. It is explained here that the original landowner may only claim compensation of an amount based on the expropriation price at the time of initial utilization of the land.
' Translated by Wei-Feng Huang of THY International Law Offices.
解釋字號： 釋字第 534 號
解釋日期： 民國 90 年 11 月 30 日
解釋爭點：
土地法第二百十九條關於徵收之土地因可歸責於原土地所有人或使用人，致未能依限使用者，原土地所有人不得聲請收回土地之規定，是否違憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 44 卷 1 期 8-20 頁
司法院大法官解釋（十四）（99年5月版）第 337-356 頁
總統府公報 第 6439 號 12-28 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23、143 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 215、219、222、224、238 條 ( 90.10.31 )
解 釋 文：
人民依法取得之土地所有權，應受法律之保障與限制，為憲法第一百四十三條第一項所明定。土地徵收係國家因公共事業之需要，對人民受憲法保障之財產權，經由法定程序予以強制取得之謂，相關法律所規定之徵收要件及程序，應符合憲法第二十三條所定必要性之原則。土地法第二百十九條第一項第一款規定，私有土地經徵收後，自徵收補償發給完竣屆滿一年，未依徵收計畫開始使用者，原土地所有權人得於徵收補償發給完竣屆滿一年之次日起五年內，向該管市、縣地政機關 (中華民國八十九年一月二十六日修正為「直轄市或縣 (市) 地政機關」，下同) 聲請照徵收價額收回其土地，原係防止徵收機關為不必要之徵收，或遷延興辦公共事業，特為原土地所有權人保留收回權。是以需用土地機關未於上開期限內，依徵收計畫開始使用徵收之土地者，如係因可歸責於原土地所有權人或為其占有該土地之使用人之事由所致，即不得將遷延使用徵收土地之責任，歸由徵收有關機關負擔；其不能開始使用係因可歸責於其他土地使用人之事由所致，而與原土地所有權人無涉者，若市、縣地政機關未會同有關機關於徵收補償發給完竣一年內，依土地法第二百十五條第三項規定逕行除去改良物，亦未依同法第二百三十八條規定代為遷移改良物，開始使用土地；需用土地人於上開期間內復未依徵收計畫之使用目的提起必要之訴訟，以求救濟，應不妨礙原土地所有權人聲請收回其土地。土地法第二百十九條第三項規定之適用，於上開意旨範圍內，不生牴觸憲法之問題。
理 由 書：
人民依法取得之土地所有權，應受法律之保障與限制，為憲法第一百四十三條第一項所明定。土地徵收係國家因公共事業之需要，對人民受憲法保障之財產權，經由法定程序予以強制取得之謂，相關法律所規定之徵收要件及程序，應符合憲法第二十三條所定必要性之原則。需用土地人依土地法所定徵收程序辦理徵收時，應預先依土地法第二百二十四條規定擬具詳細徵收計畫書，附具相關文書，依同法第二百二十二條規定聲請核辦，於合法取得人民之私有土地所有權後，即應按照徵收計畫開始使用，以實現公用需要之徵收目的。土地法第二百十九條第一項第一款規定，私有土地經徵收後，自徵收補償發給完竣屆滿一年，未依徵收計畫開始使用者，原土地所有權人得於徵收補償發給完竣屆滿一年之次日起五年內，向該管市、縣地政機關聲請照徵收價額收回其土地，即係防止徵收機關對不必要之徵收或未盡周詳之徵收計畫率行核准、或需用土地人遷延興辦公共事業，致有違徵收之正當性或必要性，因而特為原所有權人保留收回權。
需用土地人未於上開一年期限內，依徵收計畫開始使用徵收之土地，如係因可歸責於原土地所有權人或為其占有該土地之使用人之事由所致，即不得將遷延使用徵收土地之責任，歸由需用土地人負擔；其不能開始使用係因可歸責於其他土地使用人之事由所致，而與原土地所有權人無涉者，若市、縣地政機關未會同有關機關於徵收補償發給完竣一年內，依土地法第二百十五條第三項規定逕行除去改良物，亦未依同法第二百三十八條規定代為遷移，開始使用土地；需用土地人於市、縣地政機關在上開期間內怠於行使公權力而為強制執行時，復未依徵收計畫之使用目的提起必要之訴訟，以求救濟，是以市、縣地政機關既未積極推行計畫內容，需用土地人又怠於行使權利，此際原土地所有權人若不得聲請收回土地，不啻將此不利益歸由原土地所有權人負擔，自應不妨礙收回權之行使。土地法第二百十九條第三項規定之適用，於上開意旨範圍內不生牴觸憲法問題。又本件聲請人據以聲請解釋涉及之土地經徵收後，如依本解釋意旨，得聲請收回其土地時，若在本解釋公布前，其土地已開始使用，闢為公用財產而為不融通物者，倘其收回於公益有重大損害，原土地所有權人即不得聲請收回土地，惟得比照開始使用時之徵收價額，依法請求補償相當之金額，併此說明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 534
Date 2001.11.30
Issue
Is the law, which provides that in the case where private land has been expropriated but not utilized within one year after payment of expropriation compensation, the original owner may exercise the right of redemption within a five-year period provided that utilization of the land is not prevented by the original owner and other land users unrelated to the owner, in conflict with the constitutional protection of the people's property right?
Holding
The protection and restriction of the people's right to legally acquired land ownership are provided for in Article 143, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution. Expropriations of land are compulsory acquisitions by the government, through lawful procedures, for public utility purposes. The criteria and procedures for expropriation must conform to the principle of necessity stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution. Article 219, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, of the Land Act provides that where private lands are expropriated but not yet utilized according to the plans, within one year after payment of expropriation compensation, the original land owners may redeem their lands at the expropriation price by applying to the relevant municipal or county land authorities (or the land authorities of municipalities governed by the central government and land authorities of other municipalities and counties, as amended on January 26, 2000) within the statutory period of five years commencing from the day following the said one-year period. The purpose for reserving the right to redeem expropriated lands to land owners is to prevent unnecessary expropriations or delays in constructing public utility. Therefore, where the organization intending to use the expropriated land (the "intended land user") fails to utilize the land within the one-year period according to the expropriation plan, and such failure can be attributed to the landowner or persons occupying the land on behalf of the owner, then the relevant authorities cannot be held responsible for the delay. On the other hand, if, due to no fault of the landowner, utilization of the land is prevented by other land users unrelated to the owner, then the landowner shall not be deprived of the right to redeem his/her land, provided, however, that the municipal, county and relevant land authorities fail to, within the said one-year period, remove land improvements on their own account and on the land owner's account under Article 215, Paragraph 3, and Article 238 of the Land Act, and that the intended land users fail to commence an action for compensation within the one-year period. The application of Article 219, Paragraph 3, of the Land Act falls within the scope of the foregoing explanation and does not contravene the Constitution.
Reasoning
The protection and restriction of the people's right to legally acquired land ownership are provided for in Article 143, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution. Expropriations of land are compulsory acquisitions by the government, through lawful procedures, for public utility purposes. The criteria and procedures for expropriation must conform to the principle of necessity stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution. The intended land users should, when expropriating lands pursuant to the procedures set by the Land Act, draft a detailed expropriation plan accompanied by relevant documents and apply for an approval in accordance with Articles 222 and 224, respectively, of the Land Act. Once the intended land users have thereby acquired ownership of the private land, they should commence utilizing the land according to their plans in order to achieve the purpose for expropriation, that is, public utility. Article 219, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, of the Land Act provides that where private lands are expropriated but not yet utilized, according to the plans, within one year after payment of expropriation compensation, then the original land owners may redeem their lands at the expropriation price by applying to the relevant municipal or county land authorities within the statutory period of five years commencing from the day following the said one-year period. The purpose for reserving the right to redeem expropriated lands for land owners is to prevent approvals of unnecessary or inappropriate expropriation plans by the expropriation authorities and/or delays in constructing public utilities by intended land users which are in conflict with the appropriateness and necessity of expropriation.
Therefore, where the intended land users fail to utilize the land within the said one-year period according to the expropriation plan, and such failure can be attributed to the landowner or persons occupying the land on behalf of the owner, then the relevant authorities cannot be held responsible for the delay. On the other hand, if, due to no fault of the landowner, utilization of the land is prevented by other land users unrelated to the owner, then the landowner shall not be deprived of the right to redeem his/her land, provided, however that the municipal, county and relevant land authorities fail to, within the said one-year period, remove land improvements and commence utilizing the land on their own account and on the land owner's account under Article 215, Paragraph 3, and Article 238 of the Land Act. The reason for the foregoing is that it is unreasonable to deny the original land owners the right to redeem when the intended land users fail to initiate an action for compensation against the relevant land authorities' delay in exercising their powers of expropriation within the said one-year period. That is, the original land owners shall not be responsible for the municipal and county land authorities' lack of initiative in executing the plan or the intended land users' failure to exercise their rights. The application of Article 219, Paragraph 3, of the Land Act falls within the scope of the foregoing explanation and does not contravene the Constitution. The expropriated land that is the subject of the application for this Interpretation may not be redeemed by the original land owner by application according to this Interpretation if, before this Interpretation is promulgated, the land has been utilized and classified as a public asset inaccessible to private citizens, and its redemption by the owner will be severely detrimental to public interests. It is explained here that the original landowner may only claim compensation of an amount based on the expropriation price at the time of initial utilization of the land.
' Translated by Wei-Feng Huang of THY International Law Offices.
今日瀏覽人數：17110 總瀏覽人數：9707345
|
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。