Go to Content Area :::

Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) Logo

Home Sitemap 中文版
   

Decisions

Home > Decisions > Docket Search > Before 2022
:::
:::
  • 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.
      
Back Top