Have library access?
  • Journals


Exploring Public Welfare and Necessity of Land Expropriation: A Case of Unconstitutional MeHAS Expropriation



Parallel abstracts

On September 25th, 2015, the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 732 declared the provisions which MeHAS expropriation pursuant to was unconstitutional. These provisions in Mass Rapid Transit Act and Regulations for the Joint Development of Land Adjacent to or Contiguous with the Mass Rapid Transit System allowing competent authorities to expropriate lands adjacent to Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) System should no longer be applicable from the date of Interpretation. The major issue of MeHAS case lies in the land expropriation: on the one hand, people's lands are provided to private consortium use, and public welfare involves on the other hand. J.Y. Interpretation No. 732 rules that land expropriation shall be restricted to transportation purpose to the minimum extent necessary. However, the MeHas joint development housing complex was built on the land reserved for MRT depot. It is reasonable to assume that the government over-seized a scope for the depot than its necessary requirement, where it even further made part of the land for congregate housing or other business purpose. This has been clearly inconsistent with the principle of proportionality and the principle of minimum violation to people's rights in the Constitution. The building lot for office and housing are not necessarily required for MRT facility, and expropriating that building lot in a common way has already violated the principle of public welfare and necessity under the land expropriation in consequence. In MeHas expropriation, the government initially expropriated private land for use by MRT with low price, however it turned out to be partly use for housing complex where the construction company even seized the property rights up to 70%. The land owners have filed administrative remedy but eventually it's been objected by the Supreme Administrative Court. The public welfare and necessity defined in the first place seems to be alternated after the land development, and it becomes dispute if the originally assessed definition remains. This case study aims to explore the definition of public welfare and necessity and to provide suggestion based on interpretive theory.


內政部地政司(2000)。【內政部土地徵收審議委員會組織規程】。取自 https://www. land.moi.gov.tw/law/explainlist/105?lid=7429。
李震山(2015)。【釋字第 732 號解釋協同意見書】。取自 https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/ docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310913。