Legal information

Introduction to the article: Aunt Lin petitioned for compensation for demolition for one year, but the court refused to accept it. Why?

(Part 1) Case Story

One noon a year ago, Aunt Lin and her husband had just finished lunch when staff from the demolition office came to their home and informed them that their house would be demolished the following Monday. Aunt Lin objected because the compensation conditions had not been negotiated and a demolition and resettlement compensation agreement had not been signed. The demolition party's staff came to Aunt Lin's house several times and believed that their delay in signing the agreement affected the progress of the demolition work. He said that if the agreement is not signed, forced demolition may be carried out. On the following Monday, Aunt Lin's family did not vacate the house. A group of construction workers came to demolish the house and razed the Lin family's house to the ground. The Lin family took pictures and videos of the demolition site with their mobile phones, and then started petitioning and reporting to relevant departments. One year has passed and no compensation for demolition has been received. Aunt Lin and her family decided to go to court directly to sue, but the judge said the case could not be accepted. The Lin family remembers that it took two years for the statute of limitations to pass, and it was just over a year since the forced demolition. Why is this?

(Part 2) Let’s see how the law provides for such cases

(1) The prosecution period for forced demolition cases is shortened to 6 to 12 months. Don’t miss the statute of limitations for rights protection.

follow newExplanation of actionArticle 64: If an administrative agency fails to notify citizens, legal persons or other organizations of the time limit for prosecution when taking administrative actions, the time limit for prosecution shall be calculated from the date when the citizen, legal person or other organization knows or should know the time limit for prosecution, but the maximum period from the date the citizen, legal person or other organization knows or should know the content of the administrative act shall not exceed one year.

(2) First, the parties were not informed of their right to sue when the administrative action was taken, and second, the time limit for filing a lawsuit was one year. Yingting reminds you that generally speaking, after a forced demolition occurs, if you want to sue the government for illegal demolition, you need to file a lawsuit within 6 months. However, in forced demolition cases, the government sometimes does not provide written notice before carrying out forced demolition, or the document issued does not remind the parties of their right to sue. In this case, the parties can file a lawsuit within 1 year. In forced demolition cases, the parties involved are often afraid of intensifying conflicts and are unwilling to sue the government immediately. Instead, they choose to petition, report, go to leaders, etc. to try to solve the problem. This delays for a long time and the problem is not easy to solve. When they really make up their mind to sue, they miss the deadline for filing a lawsuit and lose the opportunity to defend their rights. However, the judicial interpretation issued in 2000 stipulates that the prosecution period under the same circumstances is 2 years. Therefore, readers who have a certain understanding of the law need to pay special attention and do not ignore changes in legal provisions that may cause the prosecution period to be exceeded.

(3) The case cannot be filed in these two situations

a. Internal level supervision behavior. Some parties believed that the "Regulations on House Expropriation and Compensation on State-Owned Land" stipulated that the higher-level people's government should strengthen the supervision of the lower-level people's government's house expropriation and compensation work, so they sued based on this and asked the court to rule that the higher-level government should perform the duty of supervising the lower-level government, hoping to use this to urge the expropriating party to advance the work. However, in the new litigation interpretation, this kind of internal-level supervision behavior is clearly listed as non-actionable behavior. This is because internal-level supervision does not directly set up new rights and obligations of the parties, and the court cannot file a case in this regard.

b. Complaint processing behavior. Many parties involved in expropriation and demolition who are dissatisfied with the results of demolition will try to solve the problem through petition channels. If they are dissatisfied with the acceptance, assignment, supervision, inspection, guidance, etc. during the petition process, they sometimes want to directly sue for the petition. However, because these actions are not mandatory and do not affect substantive rights and obligations, the court will not accept them. Of course, if the petition agency fails to respond within the time limit, you can still file a case in court to sue the administrative inaction.

(Part 3) Why did the court not accept this case?

1. Focus of Dispute (1) Can demolition be carried out without signing a compensation agreement?

Of course not! Ying Ting believes that according to my country’s existing legal provisions, namely, Article 27 of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land, “Compensation should be carried out first before relocation is carried out. After the municipal or county-level people’s government that made the decision to expropriate the house compensates the expropriated person, the expropriated person should provide compensation as agreed in the compensation agreement or compensation decision. The relocation must be completed within the determined relocation period. No unit or individual may use violence, threats, or illegal methods such as interrupting water supply, heating, gas supply, power supply, and road access to force the expropriated person to relocate. Therefore, it is illegal for the demolition party to demolish without signing an agreement in this case.

2. Focus of Dispute (2) Is the court correct in not accepting this case?

The court's approach is legal! Because according to the judicial interpretation of the new "Administrative Litigation Law" in 2018 on house expropriation and demolition, after a forced demolition occurs, if you want to sue the government for illegal forced demolition, you need to file a lawsuit within 6 months. However, in forced demolition cases, the government sometimes does not provide written notice before carrying out the forced demolition, or the document issued does not remind the parties of the right to litigate. In this case, the parties can file a lawsuit within 1 year. In this case, it has been more than one year since the demolition, which obviously exceeded the statute of limitations, so the court did not accept the case. The two-year statute of limitations mentioned by the Lin family is the provisions of the "Old Judicial Interpretation" issued in 2000 for such cases. Therefore, Ying Ting suggested that the demolition households should take legal measures to solve the problem as soon as possible after encountering forced demolition. Don't waste your precious time!