|Budget Amount *help
¥1,900,000 (Direct Cost : ¥1,900,000)
Fiscal Year 1994 : ¥800,000 (Direct Cost : ¥800,000)
Fiscal Year 1993 : ¥1,100,000 (Direct Cost : ¥1,100,000)
This Study has two subjects. The first is on the cotribution of lands for public interests like as roads, river, park and so on, and the second is on the cost allocation by the land owners of giving or taking lands for non-agricultural purposes. The results are as follows ;
First subject : (1) Recently in many Land Consolidation projects, lands are contributed for public interests by the all the participants relative to the value of their old parcels. This is a very usuful way for both public sectors and participants (land owners). (2) But there is not so well legally systemized in the Land Consolidation procedure that causes difficulties to contribute lands for public facilities in realities. (3) The first difficulty is that it is impossible to transfer the land ownership to public sectors before superseding the new legal status which is completed at the end of the project. The public sectors don't want to take lands and pay for them without their ownership. (4) The second is that land
owners must pay more tax for giving lands in the Land Consolidation procedure than in the case of selling for public purposes in ordinary procedure. It is because the tax system does'nt prepare enough deduction for the Land Consolidation procedure. (5) There are, therefore, often found illegal reactions to solve the above situation. (6) I propose the introduction of a special procedure for contributing lands for public interests, and of an agreement between public sectors and the Land Consolidation sector for transference of land ownership.
Second subject : (1) The present Land Consolidation act does'nt give qualification of participants to the land owners of giving or taking lands of non-agricultural purposes in the projects, therefore they have no obligation to pay the expense of the projects. (2) But they actually get profits through the projects, that is, improving roads and drainage condition, taking better parcels for non-agricultural use (good position, land consolidation, well shaped lots etc.) , saving the costs of measurement and register, and deregulation. (3) Then, the participants of paying the project expenses have the feeling of unequality, and so that there are some project areas that allocate the expenses to the land owners on non-agricultural use. (4) The allocation is reasonable and probable, because we can specify the person of getting profits and the contents of profits. (5) I propose that the act should be revised to ask the cost allocation to the land owners related to non-agricultural use. For it, there will be a legal problem left in the qualification of participants. Less