The Taiwan High Court rendered the 107-Chung-Shang-Guo-6 Civil Decision of August 8, 2018 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that since land revision surveys and assistance with the installation of landmarks by land agencies have no bearing on the acquisition or loss of land ownership, national compensation may not be sought on the ground that rights have been unlawfully infringed by civil servants in their performance of such duties.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the Defendant had violated the requirements for cadastral surveys when conducting a land survey, resulting in the Plaintiff’s filing of a separate complaint against the owner of an adjacent land to demolish the fences which had exceeded the land boundaries. In addition, the Plaintiff sought national compensation on the ground that erroneous data had been provided for a land revision survey conducted at the instruction of the judiciary. The original trial court ruled against the Plaintiff. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff appealed.
According to the Decision, land revision surveys and assistance with the installation of landmarks by land agencies are based on the functions of the administrative power, and the provision of technical services for land surveys has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of land ownership. Therefore, there was no damage to the Plaintiff. In addition, disputes between citizens over land boundaries are disputes associated with real estate ownership. Whether the results of a land survey conducted by a land agency can be relied on as a basis falls within the discretion of the court hearing the civil disputes. This is different from the scenario where a citizen’s rights and interests are changed as a result of an administrative disposition. Since the Plaintiff failed to substantiate any specific error, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant was liable for damages in accordance with Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the National Compensation Law on the ground that the Plaintiff’s rights were unlawfully violated when the Defendant’s civil servants performed the above duties was certainly unacceptable, the appeal was dismissed on such basis, and the original decision against the Plaintiff was upheld.