Argument Against the Independent Compensation for Usufruct Rights in Collective Land Expropriation
Article 327 of the Civil Code does not implicitly suggest that the right of usufruct should be compensated independently.In fact,there are technical challenges to separately compensating for the right of usufruct due to the complexities in uniformly quantifying the value of usufruct rights,which vary in content.Furthermore,the independent compensation of usufruct rights encounters internal system conflicts,potentially encourages fraudulent claims for compensation,and raises the issue of double compensation.Additionally,unlike countries with private land ownership,our nation operates under a system of collective land ownership,which inherently restricts the disposal and earning capabilities of usufruct rights.Consequently,in our country,independently compensating for the right of usufruct could result in inequities between the parties involved in the usufruct contract,may be seen as infringing upon the interests of other collective members,and could deviate from the principles of collective ownership reform.As such,the policy objective of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of farmers whose land is expropriated should be progressively realized through enhancing the internal governance of rural collective economic organizations as legal entities,on the condition that the right of usufruct is not compensated independently.
Collective Land ExpropriationUsufruct RightRight to Land Contractual ManagementLand Compensation Fee
万方数据
