The Kaohsiung High Administrative Court rendered the 106-Su-143 Decision of July 18, 2018 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that a person who believes it necessary to requisition a private land in order to set up a public enterprise is required to apply to the competent authority for the requisition; and an ordinary citizen has no right to request the person who needs to use a land to apply to the state to requisition the citizen’s land or improvements.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Plaintiff asserted that his land at issue was encroached and occupied when the original irrigation waterway road in the land used by the Defendant irrigation association for business was rerouted. As a result, the value of such land owned by the Plaintiff was impaired since it was no longer adjacent to any road and became a fractional land. However, the Defendant had failed to apply to the Council of Agriculture, another defendant in this case, for requisition and the Council of Agriculture replied that the requisition was not possible for a lack of budget. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff brought an administration action pursuant to applicable procedures.
According to the Decision, the legal relationship of land requisition, unless otherwise stipulated by law, only requires a land user requesting requisition by the state and requisition compensation provided by the state and the requisitioned party. There is no legal relationship between the user who needs the land and the owner. To wit, a user who needs to use a land and who believes it necessary to requisition a private land to set up a public enterprise is required to include relevant documents in application to the Ministry of the Interior for requisition pursuant to a statutory procedure. However, the need for requisition application, if any, falls within the discretion of the user who needs the land, and an ordinary citizen has no public law right to request the user who needs the land to apply to the state to requisition the citizen’s land or land improvements. Therefore, even if a citizen proactively requests a person who needs to use the citizen’s land to apply to the state for requisition, it will suffice to merely ask the user who needs the land to file the requisition application. However, the right is not a public law claim by nature. Therefore, the Plaintiff in this matter had no right under public law to request the Defendant irrigation association and the Council of Agriculture to initiate a requisition with compensation. Since this action to impose obligations was groundless, it should be dismissed.