For the thorough fulfillment of the fundamental state policy that assists self-employed farmers and self-managing land users and protects farmers’ right to seek compensation from the state, Articles 11, 76, and 77 of the Equalization of Land Rights Act state that when taking leased private-owned tillage, allotting public-owned tillage, or terminating a leasing agreement and recovering leased tillage for the uses of buildings, the owners of privately-owned lands, the original supervising authorities of the publicly-owned tillage, or the authorities which need lands shall compensate the lessee at 1/3 of the remainder of the price of the land after subtracting the land increment tax. The purposes of this provision are to prevent the tenant farmer from losing his or her means of living incurred by the inability to engage in the cultivation of crops because of his or her loss of tillage and to protect the rights and interests of persons who cooperatively manage farms as well. The lessee of the tillage who should receive compensation as mentioned in Article 11 of the above Equalization of Land Rights Act means a person or a cooperative farm leasing the tillage and engaged in the cultivation in fact. Those who engage in cultivation on non-leased tillage or lease tillage but do not engage in the cultivation in fact shall not be included.
Based on its duty, the Executive Yuan petitioned this uniform Interpretation case. According to the legislative intent of Article 11 of the Equalization of Land Rights Act, this Yuan, on the basis of the above reasoning, recognizes that the so-called lessee means a person or a cooperative farm leasing the tillage and engaging in the cultivation in fact. However, before the promulgation of this Interpretation, the opinion relating to the meaning of the above provision made by the court in judgments will not be deemed an application of regulations in error. It cannot be claimed as a cause for retrial.
*Translated by Ching P. Shih