Majority
Headnote
[1] State Land Settlement Act—State Lands—Exemption erom Taxation.—-All lands held by the state and open for settlement , upon the terms prescribed by the State Land Settlement Act (Stats. 1917, p. 1566) are lands which “belong” to the state and are exempt from taxation under the provisions of article XIII, section 1, of the constitution, which provides: “All property in the state except as otherwise in this constitution provided, not exempt under the laws of the United States, shall be taxed in proportion to its value . . . property . . . such as may belong to . . . this state . . . shall be exempt from taxation,” and the public character of such lands is not affected by the fact that such lands were once held in private ownership.This action arises on a petition for a writ of mandate by the State Land Settlement Board against the board of supervisors and the district attorney of the county of Merced, asking for a writ of mandate commanding said board of supervisors to have entered upon the minutes of its board an order directing the auditor of the county of Merced to cancel certain assessments of taxes levied against the State Land Settlement Board for the fiscal year 1924-25, and likewise directing said respondents, as members of and constituting said board of supervisors, to
But one question is presented by this proceeding, to wit: whether the lands and property acquired and held by the State Land Settlement Board on behalf of the state and which are needful or necessary to effect the purposes of said act (Stats. 1917, c. 755, p. 1566; amended Stats. 1923, c. 411, p. 930; Stats. 1925, e. 206, p. 358) are subject to taxation. (Const., art. XIII, sec. 1; Pol. Code, sec. 3607.)
The first section of the act is declaratory of the legislative belief in the wholesomeness of the legislation it was undertaking. It is thus stated: “The legislature believes that land settlement is a problem of great importance to the welfare of all the people of the state of California and for that reason through this particular act endeavors to improve the general economic and social conditions of agricultural settlers within the state and of the people of the state in general.” By section 2, as amended in 1923 (Stats. 1923, p. 930, see. 1), the object and scope of the act is thus stated: “The object of this act is to provide employment and rural homes for soldiers, sailors, marines and others who have served with the armed forces of the United States in the European war or other wars of the United States, including former American citizens who served in allied armies against the central powers and have been repatriated, and who have been honorably discharged, to promote closer agricultural settlement, to assist deserving and quali
By section 3, as amended in 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 358, sec. 1), it is provided that the board shall constitute a body corporate, with the right on behalf of the state to hold property, receive and request donations, to sue and be sued, and all other rights provided by the constitution and laws of the state of California, as belonging to bodies corporate, together with all rights and authority necessary for the proper carrying out of the provisions of the act.
Section 4, as amended in 1923 (Stats. 1923, p. 932, see. 2), provides that the board may acquire on behalf of the state, by purchase, gift, or the exercise of the power of eminent domain, all land, water rights, and other property needed for the purposes of the act, and may take title in trust and shall, without delay, improve, subdivide, and sell such land, water rights, and other property, with appurtenances and rights, to approved bona fide settlers. The powers with which the board is invested by the act are very broad and are too numerous to restate at large. We will, therefore, make reference to but a few of them. The board is given authority to set aside for town-site purposes suitable areas purchased under the provisions of the act and to subdivide and sell or lease said lands acquired by it for cash, or on terms, in lots of such size and with such restrictions as to resale as it shall deem best; it may dedicate to public use such areas as it may deem desirable for roads, schoolhouses, churches, or other public purposes. It is given authority to contract with owners of tracts of land large enough, in the opinion of the board, to provide homes for at least one hundred settlers, such tracts to have a water supply sufficient to irrigate the same. Under such contracts the board may provide that it shall prepare plans for subdivision, improvement, and sale of the tract contracted for, and in cases where the board is able to make arrangements satisfactory
Said board is empowered to establish within California or outside the state “offices for meeting settlers and selling the land.” Also to “arrange for land seekers’ excursions within or without the state.” In addition to the many enumerated powers conferred, or attempted to be conferred, upon the board it is given “all additional power and authority the board may deem necessary to enable the board to co-ordinate existing colonizing activities so far as they relate to irrigable areas and to bring to new farming communities the benefit of an organized life. The board shall make such charges in connection whh its work under such contracts as will be sufficient to meet all expenses, such charges to be paid out of the funds obtained from the sale of the land.”
Section 5 provides for the procedure to be taken when, in the judgment of the board, private land should be purchased for settlement in furtherance of the purposes of the act. Before the purchase of any private land may be made an inspector approved by the board must be appointed to inspect the land proposed to be purchased and report to the board as to the productiveness and the value of the same and its adaptability to intensive, closer settlement, including an appraisement of the value of water rights and improvements thereon, and if the board is satisfied as to the reasonableness of the seller’s price it shall submit its report and recommendations to the Governor and upon his approval the board shall be authorized to make the purchase, provided that before the purchase is made the attorney-general shall approve the title of such land and any water right appurtenant thereto and the State Water Commission shall certify in writing as to the sufficiency of any water rights to be conveyed.
Other provisions of the act not essential to a consideration of the questions presented are omitted.
We have quoted freely from the act, substantially adopting its language, for the reason that it aptly illustrates the completeness of the official control under which the colonization plan has been placed and shows that said lands are treated as state property. The purchase of all lands by the board is made subject to the approval of the Governor of the state and the title thereto must be approved by the attorney-general. The State Water Commission must also
It will be also noted by an examination of the plan and scheme of the act that nothing is said nor is any provision made for the payment of taxes on land owned by the state and not under contracts of purchase. It is not likely that such an important item as the payment of taxes on lands owned by the state would have escaped the attention of the framers of the act in view of the very careful and thoughtful provisions made for the payment by the purchasers of all costs and expenses incidental to sales and for the repayment of all outlay or advancement of moneys made by the state in carrying out the provisions of the act, together with interest, which costs, expenses, and outlays of money are included in the purchase price, to the end that the state may be made whole in the transaction. The fact that taxes are not regarded as an element in computing the price to the purchasers gives support to the theory that it was not the intention of the framers of the act that land acquired and held by the state for the purposes of the act should be subject to taxation. [1] We think that all lands held by the state and open for settlement upon the terms prescribed by the State Land Settlement Act are lands which belong to the state and are exempt from taxation under the provisions of article XIII, section 1, which provides:
“All property in the state except as otherwise in this Constitution provided, not exempt under the laws of the United States, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as provided by law, or as hereinafter provided . . . property . . . such as may belong to the United States, this state, or to any county, city and county, or municipal corporation within this state shall be exempt from taxation, ...”
We are unable to perceive why, and no argument.of sufficient strength has been made to convince us to the contrary, lands purchased by the board in compliance with the act
[2] The rule that provisions exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed has no application to this case. In Pasadena v. County of Los Angeles, 182 Cal. 171 [ 187 Pac. 418 ], speaking of the strict construction rule, it is said: “That rule applies to exemptions of property held in private ownership. But where the question is whether or not public property shall be taxed, the rule is that it is not to be taxed unless there is express authority therefor. An example of this is found in the decisions to the effect that property belonging to a city was not taxable under the constitution of 1849, although there was no express exemption thereof in that constitution. (People v. Doe, 36 Cal. 220 .) ”
[3] The parcels of land upon which the assessments are sought to be canceled are situate within the Delhi state land settlement and are numbered 256 and 433, respectively. Allotment number 256 has been sold by the board and is subject to a contract of purchase made by it with one N. J. Garrison. “When an interest in land, whether freehold or for years, is severed from the public domain and put into private hands, the natural implication is that it goes there with the ordinary incidents of private property and therefore is subject to be taxed. . . . ‘The principle that a possessory right in public land is private property, and that it may be assessed for purposes of taxation to the person in possession, although in point of law he may have no right as against the state or government owning the land, has long been settled in this state.’ ” (San Pedro etc. R. R. Co. v. Los Angeles, 180 Cal. 18 [ 179 Pac. 393 ].) A private interest in or use of public lands is not exempt from taxation because the interest of the state is nontaxable. It does not follow, however, that because the interest of a private person in public lands is taxable that the reversionary interest of the state thereto is also taxable. (San Pedro etc. R. R. Co. v. Los Angeles, supra.)
Let a peremptory writ of mandamus issue directing the cancellation of the assessments of the two allotments of land described in the petition.
Lawlor, J., Waste, J., Shenk, J., Richards, J., and Myers, C. J., concurred.
Cases cited
- City & County of San Francisco v. McGovern 28 Cal. App. 491 p. 480
- City of Pasadena v. County of Los Angeles 182 Cal. 171 p. 481
- People v. Doe G. 1,034 36 Cal. 220 p. 481
- San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad v. City of Los Angeles 180 Cal. 18 p. 481