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.326
  • Date
  • 1993/10/08
  • Issue
    • Do the naturally formed rivers and the therefore announced “vicinity of watercourses” belong to lands for public facilities?
  • Holding
    •        The so-called watercourses described in Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the Urban Planning Act refer to those watercourses which are set under the planned development of the important facilities in the city and the reasonable planning according to the provision of Article 3 of this Act.  As for the rivers naturally formed by the geographical features, and the “vicinity of watercourses” therefore announced according to the Water Act, though they are within the zone for use in the urban planning, they do not belong to the aforesaid watercourses.
      
  • Reasoning
    •        Urban planning refers to the planned development in some specific areas of the important facilities for the economy, transportation and communications, hygiene, security, national defense, literature and education, recreation, etc. of urban life, and the reasonable planning for land use. This is clearly provided in Article 3 of the Urban Planning Act.  The so-called watercourses described in Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 42 of this Act refer to those watercourses which are set under reasonable planning according to the above-mentioned provision and belong to those “suitable public-owned lands which shall be first taken to be utilized” according to the provision of Paragraph 2 of this Article.  It could be perceived that lands through which these watercourses flow did not belong to the aforesaid watercourses in origin, and they became the watercourses belonging to the lands for public facilities due to being set under the urban planning.  As for the rivers naturally formed by the geographical features, and the lands therefore announced as being the vicinity of watercourses according to the Water Act, though they are within the zone for use in the urban planning, since they were not thus set according to the Urban Planning Act, they do not belong to the above-mentioned lands for public facilities, nor would they even if they were designated as watercourses.  Separating  the zone for use or zone for specific use according to Article 32 of the Urban Planning Act is for the land use control, and this is different from the setting of the lands for public facilities.
      
    • *Translated by Jer -Shenq Shieh.
      
Back Top