2.2.2. Principle of Compensation for Expropriation
Payment of compensation is the second, but equally important, limitation on the government’s power of expropriation. This is a fact generally found in all legal systems of the world, whether or not private property is respected. This means, even in countries where the private ownership of land is not yet allowed, like China and Ethiopia, payment of compensation for the holder of rights on the property is recognized by law (Daniel, 2009).
The process, however, brings tension for people who are threatened with dispossession. The compulsory acquisition of land for development purpose may ultimately bring benefits to society but it is disruptive to people whose property is acquired. In countries
Compensation is to repay the affected people for the losses they suffered, and should be based on principles of equity and equivalence. The principle of equivalence is crucial to determining compensation: affected owners and occupants shall be neither enriched nor impoverished as a result of the compulsory acquisition. Financial compensation on the basis of equivalence of only the loss of land rarely achieves the aim of putting those affected in the same position as they were before the acquisition; the money paid cannot fully replace what is lost i.e. in some circumstances monetary compensation is either inadequate or inappropriate(Crawford,
For example, in Romanian law33/ 94 provides for compensation to be payable for the value of the property taken and any other losses caused to the owner or any other party with an interest in the property. According to Article 14(3) of the German Basic law, the compensation is intended to offer a full balance for the loss that was imposed upon them by the expropriation interference. Other property losses due to the expropriation (consequential damages) are also compensated, too (Crawford, 2007).
According to Keith (2007), in developing countries where there is the financial resource limitation, less emphasis should be put on monetary compensation where resettlement or reinstatement are often the best means of putting the claimant back in the same position as if his/her land had not been taken from him /her.
In practice, given that the aim of the acquisition is to support development, there are strong arguments for compensation to improve the position of those affected wherever possible (Keith, 2007).
When the term compensation is used in the context of deprivation of landholding it means recompense the sum of money which the owner would have got had he sold the property on the open market plus other losses which result from the resumption (Plimmer,
Compensation must be provided to the person whose property is being bought. Each country should work to set a standard for what is a fair market price, to prevent any people from inadequate compensation. The value of the property must be taken into account, and the effect this will have on their way of life. If a person is, for example, losing their home, the government must provide enough money to ensure that individual is able to relocate comfortably.
The Land Reform Act of 1967 permitted the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landlords (the lessors) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (the lessees). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private land owners. That meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the State and Federal Govermnet.The contested statute gave lessees of single family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property that they leased, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the land owners) claimed that such a condemnation was not a taking for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was promptly turned over to the lessee (a private ...
To stimulate growth inland, the Homestead Act was initiated. Many traveled overland by horse and wagon on rutted trails and grassland to find a plot of 160 acres of undeveloped land. They were granted title to the land if they “improved” the plot by building a dwelling and cultivating the land. After five years on the land, farmers were entitled to the property, free and clear.
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
It is my opinion that the law as currently written (both legislative and common) does not provide the protections for the aggrieved as I assume was envisioned in its intent. For a rich party to merely pay a reset damage in order to capitalize (perhaps in light of market changes or new information) in breaching a valid agreement seeing it as merely a cost of enrichment is an affront to the stability of contract law and enforcement. The ability to award damages for “profit realized” would do well to cement the theory that an agreement is enforceable and legally binding. This is good for business internationally as our global markets will know that an agreement formed in the United States will be honored and the civil laws guaranteeing its enforcement has
Although the talk of reparations of slavery has been in discussion for over a hundred years, it is beginning to heat up again. Within these discussions, the issue of the form of reparations has been evaluated and money has been an option several times. However, reparations in the form of money should not be obtained for several reasons. Firstly, it is not a solution to the problem, secondly monetary reparations have the ability to worsen discrimination, thirdly, who gets paid, and how is it regulated, and lastly, the money can be misused. Many have tried to use money on several occasions to help or solve a situation, however this has been noted to be not very effective.
Distributive justice is concerned with equality in treatments, benefits, burdens, and individual rights. The concept is to treat people equally and fairly. In order for this to be applied in any scenario, even “The Oil Rig” case, individual factors must be examined and addressed accordingly. From the perspective of those living within the oil rig, the difference in living qualities and treatment or acceptable and no one is raising any flags about unequal treatment or injustice. From an outsider’s perspective, the treatment of the Angolan workers is unethical and unjustifiable. The principles of being treated equally and fairly are not met in this case and their living conditions need to be reexamined and addressed to meet the requirements of distributive
Eminent domain refers to the power of the federal or state government to take private land for public use, whether or not the owner has granted permission. In exchange for the land, the owner must be paid fair market value for their loss.[1][2][3]
In this part the salary was created from the benefits having a place with the proprietor the benefit was not produced shape any plan or business for this situation. Because of the reason the offer of area couldn't be termed as an assessable pay. Under ITAA36 S 25(I) OR 25(A). As we probably am aware the area was procured by the citizen with the end goal of conduction business and home continue as before over the timeframe. In which land was held at risk. (CCIT AUS LTD 2012,P.120).
Because U.S. government overpowers landowners, alternative land options, reimbursement to landowners, and the use of government owned property should be implemented. Eminent Domain, the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation. Farmers and other community members with land and family businesses, which are being taken away from them. The major situation is government taking landowners land without permission, leaving them with less money and a lower income. Because U.S. government overpowers landowners through eminent domain, alternative land options, full reimbursement to landowners, and the use of government owned property should be implemented.
Another example to demonstrate why some of the land was taken unlawfully was signing of the Tierra Maria Grant. This grant sold a large amount of land that belonged to many heirs, however, the grant
The fifth amendment of the US constitution states that the government can purchase land from private owners, however the owners must be paid justly (Philadelphia Convention V). However, while the government may have granted the property owners a fair price for their land, the expenses of relocating and actually finding another home are not considered. Also, there is a fairly common trend the government uses when it takes land with eminent domain. A project is announced, then years later, when property prices are low, the government goes and buys all the land for said project; not giving property owners their fair share of money (just compensation). Though not affecting the economy as a whole, this unfair lack of compensation is affecting peoples’ personal
The purpose of enacting The Land Registration Act 2002, was to combat the uncertainties evolved around the previous Act, Land Registration Act 1925 . The need for reforms was highlighted in a report by Law Commission known as Land Registration for the 21st Century: a Conveyancing Revolution . LRA 2002 repealed LRA 1925, not only simplify the law by maintaining an accurate record of all the rights and alongside interests held by others that affect the land, but also to give certainty the basic concepts engrossed by the 1925 Act as it can be very clearly evident that 2002 Act revolves around the original and principle ideas with amendments.
Extractive institutions are used throughout this book to explain that the upper class extracts resources and goods from the lower class. They don’t allow growth or competition, but rather they just exploit the rest of society into doing their labour. It’s used to please a few, rather than the majority, and can still be seen in most places in the world. Whereas, inclusive institutions are the ideal way nations should be run, allowing for fair economical systems, property ownership, educational facilities and allowing all citizens to participate in the growth of the economy. Acemoglu and Robinson argue that this is the main factor in distinguishing the rich countries from the poor and, moreover, how they treat their citizens. This system is relatively used in North America and Western Europe.
In order to secure land tenure for the urban informal settlers, different countries have introduced licenses or Certificates in different names. However they all have the same objectives. For instance, in Zambia residents are issued with a 30-year Occupancy Licences while the area undergoes through the process of upgrading. These can be later replaced by certificates of title, which carry the same effect as if the landowner were obtaining a direct lease of the land from the state (UN-Habitat, 2012). In Botswana, Certificate of Use is issued to informal dwellers so as to encourage them on further housing investment (Durand-Lasserve, 2006). In Brazil, Concession of the Real Right to Use is issued to residents. The validity period of these licences varies between 30 and 50 year periods but subject to renew (Van der Molen, 2002).