Need to ensure the rights of people whose land is recovered

(Baonghean) - The draft Land Law (amended) was first commented on by the 13th National Assembly at the 4th session and continued to be discussed and commented on at the 5th session. In this revised draft, the issue that most people are interested in and commenting on is the State's land allocation, land recovery and compensation for site clearance when recovering land.

Within the framework of this article, we would like to mention some opinions on drafting laws on issues of interest to many people:

- Regarding the conditions for investors to be allocated land or leased land to carry out investment projects (Clause 4, Article 53), it is necessary to add a condition requiring investors to be allocated land or leased land to have guarantees on the rights of people whose land is recovered if the project is not implemented. Because in reality, some investors, after being allocated land or leasing land to carry out projects, are then unable to implement the project, leading to the situation where the land is abandoned for a long time, people whose land is recovered are not allowed to produce on that land area, and investors have not paid compensation for site clearance. When investors request to suspend the implementation of the project, people whose land is recovered request investors to compensate for loss of income on the land during the period of no production, but the law has not yet regulated this content.

- Regarding the enforcement (Article 72 and Article 73), the law needs to clearly define the composition of the "organization assigned to carry out enforcement" and the "Enforcement Implementation Board" so that in the implementation process, the responsibilities of all levels and sectors can be clearly defined. Enforcement in land recovery and site clearance compensation is an extremely difficult, sensitive, and easily violated task, directly related to the rights of the people, so it is necessary to have very specific and clear regulations. It is proposed to add Clause 5, Article 72 and Clause 6, Article 73 as the Government specifically regulates this:

- Regarding the conditions for enforcing the decision to reclaim land (Clause 2, Article 73), it is necessary to add the condition "When the organization performing the task of compensation and site clearance has organized the payment of compensation and support to the people whose land has been reclaimed". Because in reality, many projects in the process of project preparation have not calculated the cost of compensation and site clearance (usually only estimated) or due to difficulties in capital sources, have not been able to arrange funds for this work, leading to some projects not paying or not paying enough to the people whose land has been reclaimed.

In this case, it is necessary to clearly define the responsibilities of the investor to ensure the legitimate rights of the person whose land is recovered.

- Regarding the time limit for keeping and preserving the property of the person who must execute the enforcement decision (Point c, Clause 4, Article 73), the 6-month period for property other than livestock is too long, because many used properties, if not used within the period, will be damaged, which will give rise to complaints. It is recommended that the period be set at 3 months. On the other hand, it is necessary to add property that is food and foodstuffs to the same regulations as property that is livestock and the period for keeping and preserving is 5 days.

The custody and preservation of assets of the person subject to enforcement decisions can easily give rise to complaints, so it is necessary for the Government to clearly and specifically regulate, especially the responsibilities of organizations and individuals assigned to perform this task.

- Regarding land compensation, support and resettlement when the State reclaims land, according to the provisions of the Land Law, the State allocates land in two cases: allocating land without collecting land use fees and allocating land with collecting land use fees. Therefore, in the process of implementing land compensation, it should also be regulated in two directions: for cases of land allocation with collection of fees, compensation for land is paid, for cases of land allocation without collection of fees, only support for investment costs on land should be considered each year (different from other types of support).

This level of support can be equal to or not much lower than the compensation value on the same type of land area. Specific regulations in the two directions as above will ensure fairness and a clear distinction between those who are allocated land with fees and those who are allocated land without fees for land use, and at the same time be consistent with the regulations on civil transactions. Besides, it also has a significant impact on the work of site clearance (because the common mentality in site clearance compensation is often to compare the price of land when it is recovered, now the law stipulates support that can remove that mentality of the people).

- Regarding Clause 4, Article 86, it is necessary to clearly stipulate "compensation, support, resettlement, including compensation for land, assets and structures on land or just for land? If the regulations are general as above, during the implementation process, cases of "circumventing the law" are likely to occur.

- Regarding compensation for property damage, production and business when the State reclaims land (Clause 1, Article 89), for housing, it is necessary to supplement the regulation on compensation by the value of new construction in case of partial demolition to ensure the rights of people whose land is reclaimed. In reality, when a house is built, it is according to an overall architecture, so when it is partially demolished, it will destroy the overall architecture and it will be difficult to repair. The remaining part, although it may still meet the prescribed technical standards, will certainly not be qualified aesthetically; Clause 3, Article 89, needs to clearly stipulate the source of capital for technical infrastructure and social infrastructure. If it is from the state budget, the issue of compensation should not be raised.

- Regarding the periodic construction of land price lists (Clause 1, Article 114), it should be stipulated separately for agricultural land as 5 years, non-agricultural land as 3 years. Because the price of non-agricultural land in the market often fluctuates, therefore, if the 5-year period is too long, the prescribed land price will not keep up with the market price and the general development of the economy - society, which will cause many difficulties and problems in state management of land (for example: Compensation for site clearance, arising of land-related complaints, affecting revenue from land use fees...).

Tran Minh (Office of the National Assembly Delegation and Provincial People's Council)