国有土地使用权收回制度研究

发布时间：2018-03-14 16:38

本文选题：国有土地使用权　切入点：收回制度　出处：《南京大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：土地是人类生存和发展的基本物质条件。在当今中国,伴随着城市化进程的加快,一方面,土地出让价格畸高,国有土地使用权成为一项非常重要的私人财产权利；另一方面,国有土地使用权收回制度存在缺陷,土地管理部门具有双重角色,既是行政管理者又是民事当事人,使得私权利常有被公权力侵害之虞。因此,为遏制收回过程中公权力的滥用,保护私权利之目的,文章对国有土地使用权收回制度进行了梳理与分析。通过综合运用实证分析、历史分析、体系分析及跨学科分析等方法,提出对国有土地使用权收回制度必须进行完善与重构。从历史演变的角度看,国有土地使用权收回制度萌芽于1953年的《国家建设征用土地办法》,经过长期发展,1986年《土地管理法》对收回原因作了详细规定,但由于此时尚未实行土地出让制度,故其仍以土地行政划拨为前提。在1987年土地出让制度建立后,《土地管理法》数度修订,新的法律法规也相继颁布,但是仍都笼统地沿袭了过去的规定,只是在具体收回原因方面有所增加。以至于发展至今,收回制度呈现出法律条文相互交叉、收回原因纷繁复杂、法律性质与后果各不相同且有争议等特征。由于制度在变迁过程中存在路径依赖,以公权力为基础的意识形态被保留下来,国家所有权理念下私法的长期缺位也导致公法严重越位,加之地方政府的利益诉求,使得现行国有土地使用权收回制度存在多种问题,主要表现在：在立法语言方面的一词多义和文本冲突问题；在收回程序方面,主体不统一,程序不明确,事前救济程序欠缺等现象严重；在补偿制度方面,对收回与补偿的先后顺序等问题存在争议；在与房屋征收的关系方面,存在前提条件、主管部门、先后顺序、补偿标准等多项矛盾。这些问题究其本质,其实是对不同收回原因法律性质的混淆。对于通过出让方式获得的国有土地使用权来说,因公益需要而收回性质属于征收,因期限届满而收回则是用益物权消灭,因违反动工开发期限等义务而收回则应定性为土地所有权人行使法定撤销权,并且,这种撤销权的行使应通过诉讼方式且应基于不当得利的理论返还相应出让金。现行法律所规定的不同收回原因,实质上都是物权消灭的原因,土地使用权收回仅仅是物权消灭带来的必然结果,因此,可以用物权变动理论对各种收回原因的法律性质进行体系化解释。在此基础上,应从两个方面对国有土地使用权收回制度进行完善与重构,一方面,无偿收回应只适用于划拨的土地使用权,对出让的土地使用权而言,应根据不同收回原因的法律性质采用不同的立法语言；另一方面,应对国有土地使用权收回制度进行体系化建构,对现行制度进行合理拆分。补偿应作为收回的前置程序,并在收回决定作出的过程中建立利害关系人的利益表达机制。将因期限届满而收回和因违反动工开发期限而收回纳入《物权法》,突出其民事性质,将因公益需要而收回与地上建筑物征收合并,制定统一的《土地征收法》。
[Abstract]:Land is the basic material conditions of human survival and development. In today's China, along with the city to speed up the process, on the one hand, the land price is extremely high, has become a very important private property rights of state-owned land use rights; on the other hand, take back the institutional defects of state-owned land use rights, land management departments with the dual role, both administrative and civil parties, the rights of public power often has been infringed. Therefore, to curb the abuse of public power in the process of recovery, to protect the private rights, reviewed and analyzed the state-owned land use right to recover the system. Through the comprehensive use of empirical analysis, history analysis, system analysis and interdisciplinary analysis method, is proposed to recover the system must be perfected and reconstruction of state-owned land use rights. From the historical point of view, the state-owned land use right to recover system Originated from the 1953 "measures on requisition of land for state construction, through long-term development, 1986" land management law "detailed provisions to recover, but because this fashion did not implement the system of land transfer, so it is still in the administrative allocation of land as the premise. In 1987 the land grant system established after the" land management law "a number of amendments, new laws and regulations have been promulgated, but are still generally follow the provisions of the past, only in specific reasons to recover increased. That development has recovered system shows the law to recover the cross, because of the complex, the nature and legal consequences are different and controversial as feature. The system path dependence exists in the process of change, with the power of basic ideology was retained, the long-term absence of state ownership under the concept of private law also led to serious offside, the local government and the The benefits of the current state-owned land use right to recover the system there are many problems, mainly in: in the legislative language polysemy and text conflict; in the recovery process, the subject is not unified, the program is not clear, the lack of prior relief procedures seriously; in compensation system, controversial order etc. the problem of recovery and compensation; in relation to the housing levy, there is prerequisite, authority, order, compensation standards and a number of contradictions. These problems, in essence, is to take back the confusion of the legal nature of different reasons. To get through the way of transferring state-owned land use rights, because the public needs to recover properties which are imposed by the expiration of the term, and recover the usufructuary right is eliminated, due to violation of the obligation to recover for development period should be characterized as the land owners The exercise of the statutory right of revocation, and exercise the right of revocation should be through litigation and unjust enrichment theory should return the corresponding premium. Based on the existing law to recover different reasons, are essentially eliminating the causes of property rights, land use rights to recover just is the inevitable result of the elimination of property so can system the interpretation of the legal nature of real right change to recover the causes of all kinds of theories. On this basis, to perfect and reconstruction, recovery system of the state-owned land use from two aspects on the one hand, unpaid response is only suitable for the allocation of land use rights, for the right to use the land, should be based on the legal nature of different reasons to recover the legislative language is different; on the other hand, to recover the system of system construction of state-owned land use right to reasonable resolution of the current system should be used as compensation. The pre procedure recovered, and the establishment of the interested parties in the process of recovery decision expression mechanism. And will recover due to violation of the deadline to start the development and back into the "property law" because of the expiration of the period, highlighting its civil nature, and will recover the collection with the ground buildings for public needs, formulate a unified "the law of land expropriation.

【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.2;D922.3

【相似文献】