您的瀏覽器不支援JavaScript語法,但是並不影響您獲取本網站的內容
司法院內部與外部景觀圖片動畫
::: | | 大法官 | 案件審理 | 大法官解釋 | 相關法規 | |
 
多條件查詢頁面按鈕

 

:::
 

大法官解釋表頭

(釋字第 322 號 )      友善列印PRINT  
Interpretation
J.Y.
Interpretation
NO.322 
Date 1993/6/18
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
1
    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
1
    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.

 

BACK

 
 
::: Home 中文(Chinese) Site Map
 
使用聲明 Copyright©2004 JUSTICES OF THE CONSTITUTIONSL COURT. JUDICIAL YUAN 本網站建議使用解析度為1024*768全彩及Explorer5.5以上瀏覽器     通過A+等級無障礙網頁檢測
多條件查詢頁面連結點 解釋爭點總覽頁面連結點