Legal information

Article introduction: There have been some abuses of social and public interests in land expropriation. Land expropriation refers to the legal act in which the state converts land collectively owned by farmers into state-owned land for the sake of public interests in accordance with the procedures and authority prescribed by law, and provides reasonable compensation and proper resettlement to rural collective economic organizations whose land has been expropriated, as well as to farmers whose land has been expropriated. Land cannot be expropriated for commercial development! It must be levied for the needs of social and public interests!

1. It is not uncommon for projects to be established in the name of public welfare projects but actually used for commercial development.

1. In lawyer practice, many people will raise a question: Why does the demolition party (expropriation party) say that all projects are public welfare projects, not commercial projects, but during the actual construction, a large number of commercial buildings and facilities were built on the land? In fact, some projects are indeed established with public welfare funds, but they also include some commercial supporting buildings and facilities. 3. So is this kind of project a public welfare project? Or is it commercial in nature? This is hard to define! In another case, when the project was established, it was said that schools and hospitals would be built. This seemed to be of a public welfare nature, but public schools and hospitals serve the public interest, while private aristocratic schools and private cosmetic and plastic surgery hospitals have obvious commercial nature. In other words, during specific construction and use, there are some deviations from the purpose at the time of project establishment. The Yingting demolition team learned that in this case, the demolition party (the expropriation party) took the edge off. Maybe the people being demolished will never realize this problem, or it may be too late when they learn the truth. Establishing a project in the name of building a public welfare project but actually using it for commercial development is essentially using lies and disguise to conceal its true intentions.

2. The demolition party demolished Zhu’s factory in the name of building a public welfare project.

1. The basic case facts are as follows. Yingting has handled such a case. The demolition party demolished Zhu’s factory in the name of building a public welfare project. In fact, the land involved was used for commercial development. Zhu filed a lawsuit in court. The first-instance verdict was that Zhu lost the case on the grounds that the construction project had already been constructed and the project was established based on national public interests. Canceling the demolition announcement would harm national and social interests. Zhu appealed against the administrative cancellation of the demolition announcement.

2. The appellant claimed: (1) The fact that the construction project has already been under construction does not constitute a reason not to cancel the demolition announcement. The judicial direction of the first-instance judgment is extremely wrong and will inevitably encourage illegal demolition and illegal land use. (2) The construction project involved in the case is not a public welfare project, but is essentially a commercial development. The cancellation of the announcement will not harm the national interests and social interests. (3) The respondent made the accused demolition announcement and implemented the expropriation act, which seriously infringed on Zhu's legitimate rights and interests.

3. The respondent argued that the original administrative action procedure of the first instance was legal and the applicable law was correct. The appellant claimed that the project involved in the case was non-public welfare and had no factual basis. The implementation of the project complied with the requirements of the city's overall planning and public interests, and the public's interests were maximized during the project implementation. The respondent municipal government argued that after receiving the reconsideration applicant's application, the respondent municipal government considered the demolition announcement made by the district government to be factually clear, the applicable law correct, and the procedures legal, and should be upheld in accordance with the law. The facts of the reconsideration decision are clear, the applicable law is correct, and the procedures are legal.

4. Final judgment: Articles 8 and 9 of the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land" stipulate that if it is necessary to expropriate houses in order to protect national security, promote national economic and social development and other public interests, the municipal and county people's governments shall make expropriation decisions; all construction activities for expropriated houses shall comply with the national economic and social development plan, the overall land use plan, urban and rural planning and special plans. The construction of affordable housing projects and the renovation of old urban areas shall be included in the annual national economic and social development plans at the municipal and county levels. The "Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that for construction projects that provide state-owned land use rights in the form of allocation in urban and town planning areas, after approval, verification and filing by relevant departments, the construction unit shall submit an application for a construction land planning license to the urban and rural planning departments of the city and county people's governments. The urban and rural planning departments of the city and county people's governments will verify the location, area, and permitted scope of construction based on the controlled detailed planning, and issue a construction land planning permit. In this case, the evidence provided by the district government does not prove that it obtained the corresponding approval documents before making the impugned demolition announcement. The district people's government has insufficient evidence for the impugned act and should be revoked. However, given that some houses in the area have been demolished, revoking the accused announcement will cause harm to social and public interests, and the accused behavior should be confirmed to be illegal. Because the accused conduct is confirmed to be illegal, the municipal government’s reconsideration decision upholding the accused conduct should be revoked. In other words, in this case, the city government’s demolition of the factory building was confirmed to be illegal, and the person who was demolished, Zhu, won the case.

Yingting reminds you:

If you encounter similar problems, you can consult a lawyer specializing in land acquisition and demolition, or ask a lawyer to intervene and provide you with legal advice using professional legal knowledge. You can send private messages for one-on-one consultation.