Case 1: Expropriation confuses state-owned land with collective land expropriation
Thirteen farmers in Sishui County, Shandong Province, received a special Administrative Reconsideration Decision, which was to: confirm that the "Decision of the People's Government of Sishui County on the Implementation of House Expropriation on the Forestry Bureau Area on the East of Sishui Road of Sicheng City and the East and West of Sishui Road North of the Gucheng Road" (Sizheng Fa No. 201115), which was issued by the people's government of Sishui County, the Respondent on 6 April 2011, was partially illegal. The Decision on the Implementation of Housing Expropriation in the Area of Sicheng Sihe Road East Forestry Bureau and Sicheng Sihe Road East and West Gucheng Road North (Sicheng Sicheng 201115) was partially unlawful, i.e., the portion of the housing expropriation that involved the expropriation of houses on collective land. This means that 13 farmers, sued and won the Sishui County People's Government, (Sizheng Fa No. 201115) decision to exceed the right to expropriation of collective land on the house behavior, by the People's Government of Jining City in the form of law to confirm the violation of the law.
I. Active application for hearing and consultation, the application paperwork stone silent.
April 6, 2011, Sishui County Government made "Sishui County People's Government of Sishui County on the Sishui City, Sihui River Road East Forestry Bureau area and Sishui River Road West Gucheng Road North area of the implementation of housing expropriation decision" (Sishui political hair [2011] No. 15), the specific administrative act decided to include Sishui County, Kaobeng Street Geng Wei, Wang Qiang and other houses and construction land, including housing and land to be expropriated, 13 households Farmers are not convinced, according to the law to hire our lawyer Wang Weizhou on behalf of the legal rights and interests.
In the administrative reconsideration of the preparation stage, 13 farmers first to Surabaya County Government submitted "about
Application for a hearing to modify the first phase of the Surabaya River Road, Gucheng Road, North Area of the residents of the housing expropriation and renovation project expropriation of housing
compensation program, hoping to be able to modify the compensation program for the expropriation of housing, and the way to the hearing of the expropriated people's opinions. But Surabaya Housing Authority received the application without any response.
The same day 13 farmers to Surabaya County Housing and Urban-Rural Planning and Construction Bureau submitted "Surabaya River Road, Gucheng Road, North Area of the expropriated people on the selection of expropriation assessment matters notice", requesting changes in Surabaya County Housing and Urban-Rural Planning and Construction Bureau of the expropriated people to draw up a list of assessment institutions, and hope that the real independent selection of assessment institutions by the expropriated people, Surabaya County Housing and Urban-Rural Planning and Construction Bureau of the notification, Surabaya County Housing and Urban-Rural Planning and Construction Bureau of this notice, there is also no response.
Under the premise of pleading for consultation to deal with the problem without hope, 13 farmers resolutely decided to defend their rights and interests through the legal process, to revoke the "Surabaya County People's Government on the Surabaya City, Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau area and Surabaya River Road East and West Ancient City Road North Area implementation of the decision on housing expropriation" (Surabaya government issued 201115).
Two, forced to take the road of rights.
In the reconsideration application, lawyers and 13 farmers pointed out that pointed out: First, (Surabaya government issued 201115) decision to determine the facts of the application of the law is wrong, beyond the authority. In this case, Surabaya county government expropriation of housing within the area, contains a large amount of collective land, Surabaya county government will be in accordance with the state-owned land for the expropriation of housing belongs to the determination of the facts, the application of law is wrong, and at the same time in accordance with the "Chinese people's * * * and the State Land Administration Law" Article 45 provides that the expropriation of collective land and its appurtenances should be approved by the people's government at the provincial level or the State Council, the defendant's behavior industry exceeded the approval of its The Defendant's behavior exceeded its approval authority. Second, less than 30 days of consultation, procedural violations. In accordance with the "state-owned land and housing expropriation and compensation regulations" article 10 of the regulations "city, county people's government shall organize the relevant departments of the expropriation and compensation plan for demonstration and be published, to solicit public opinion. The period for soliciting opinions shall not be less than 30 days." In this case, Sishui county government in March 3, 2011 published draft for public comment, March 21, the end of the consultation, April 6, 2011 to make a decision, it is clear that the consultation period does not comply with the provisions of the law. Third, the expropriation of housing and land is for the development of real estate, not a public **** interest, does not meet the conditions of expropriation. Fourth, the housing expropriation compensation program in violation of the "state-owned land housing expropriation and compensation regulations," article 19, "the compensation for the value of the expropriated housing shall not be less than the market price of similar real estate on the date of the announcement of the decision on the expropriation of the housing expropriation." The provisions of the land resumption without compensation also violates the provisions of Article 58 of the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China.
During the administrative reconsideration period, the People's Government of Sishui County made the "Announcement of the People's Government of Sishui County on the Scope of the Expropriation of the Houses Involved in the Text of (Sishui Zhengfa No. 201115)", claiming that (Sishui Zhengfa No. 201115) only expropriated houses on state-owned land within the scope of the expression, and did not expropriate houses on collective land within the scope of the expression. The People's Government of Jining City communicated with the 13 farmers many times, hoping that the 13 farmers would withdraw the administrative reconsideration, and the People's Government of Jining City organized the Sishui County Government, Sishui County Housing and Construction Bureau, and Sihui Street Office to coordinate with the 13 farmers in the hope that the farmers would withdraw their applications for administrative reconsideration, which the 13 farmers flatly refused.
Third, the farmers won the Sishui County government, the expropriation decision was recognized as illegal.
Because the Surabaya County government denied (Surabaya 201115) expropriation decision includes collective land houses, in order to obtain the victory of the administrative reconsideration, lawyers and 13 families of farmers carried out painstaking evidence, reading and research. They will Surabaya County government (Surabaya government issued 201115) of the reported materials, for page by page and article by article analysis pointed out that: 1, "Surabaya City, Surabaya River Road, West Gucheng Road, North Area, a phase of the housing expropriation investigation and registration of the public notice" has been the farmers on the collective land is identified as a levy, the house is identified as a levy on the houses; 2, "Surabaya County, Surabaya County Urban Area, Surabaya River Road, East Forestry Bureau area and the Surabaya River Road, West Gucheng Road, North Area of the Old City Reconstruction social Stability Risk Assessment Report" three "to be expropriated houses in the basic situation" states that "(a) Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau Area: covers an area of 36 acres. It involves 114 households of residents to be expropriated, of which 82 households are residents of Xiguan Community of Sihe Street; ....... (B) Sihe Road West Gucheng Road North Area: covers an area of 518 acres. Involves 611 households of residents to be expropriated, of which 503 households are residents of Sihe Street Xiguan Community and Kaobang Street Community ......." , in the respondent's statement of the Xiguan Street community 82; Xiguan Street community and Kaobeng Street community 503 residents, the land on which the houses are based are all collective land, all hold the "Collective Construction Land Use Permit"; 3, in the respondent's expropriation program referred to in the state-owned land of 14 units of the CCB, the Forestry Bureau, the Cultural Center, the Chinglong Sanitary Material Factory, the Water Conservancy Bureau family home, and so on, the 32 residents and the 32 residents and the 108 residents housing, respectively, in kao peng street, xiguan street community residents housing intertwined together, if not including kao peng street and xiguan street community then the levied houses scattered, spaced out, not connected, the respondent is not to levy a piece of waste land? Obviously illogical.4 Surabaya County government housing expropriation department held by the Surabaya City, Surabaya River Road, West Gucheng Road, North Area Housing Expropriation Compensation Program hearing was also deliberately arranged for two representatives of the expropriated people to participate. One of the representatives is the Sihe Street Office Kaopeng Street xxx, this xxx representative of the house is the collective land on the house, and he represents the Kaopeng Street within the citizens, the house is on the collective land.
In the case of ironclad evidence, the people's government of Jining City, after hearing that: the people's government of Sishui County, Sishui County people's government on the Sishui City, Surabaya River Road, East Forestry Bureau area and Surabaya River Road, East and West Gucheng Road, North area of the implementation of housing expropriation of the decision (Surabaya political hair 201115), the expropriation of the scope of the collective land in accordance with the state-owned land on the house is to identify the The facts are not clear.
Final decision: to confirm the respondent Sishui County People's Government on April 6, 2011 made the "Sishui County People's Government on the implementation of the Sishui City Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau area and Surabaya River Road East and West Ancient City Road North Area of the Decision" (Surabaya 201115) part of the violation of the law, that is, the expropriation of the housing expropriation in the part of the expropriation of the collective land involving the acquisition of houses on the illegal.
Four lawyers comment.
In Sishui County, Shandong Province, due to land acquisition and demolition disputes with the government against the court is not uncommon, and can sue the government to revoke the "demolition and relocation permits" or confirm the "demolition and relocation permits" illegal almost never. Because in accordance with the "urban housing demolition and relocation regulations" for demolition and relocation permits only need to have project approval documents, construction land use planning permit, state-owned land use right approval documents and other five elements, you can apply for demolition and relocation permits, and these five elements of the approval of the authority of the government and its constituent departments at the county level, in the demolition and relocation of permits under the premise of the five elements, due to the court and the administrative reconsideration body is only a form of review, so even if these elements have illegal circumstances, it is not a problem. Therefore, even if these elements exist in violation of the law, will not be admitted, especially the state-owned land use right approval documents, because the law does not provide for the established form, even if there is a mistake will be the collective land storage or approval of the use of the reasons for the form of review and it is difficult to be refuted. Under this formal review of the trial principle, even if the defendant and respondent will be other scope of the land approval documents to false, the district court is very likely to be admissible.
"And after the implementation of the new law on demolition and relocation, directly by the county government to make the decision to expropriation, the decision to expropriation of housing and land whether ultra vires will be directly listed as the object of scrutiny, to improve the expropriated people that is, the demolished households to defend the rights of the scope of the charge. Lawyers believe that this is one of the important reasons why the Surabaya County government's decision to expropriate houses for the first time after the implementation of the new law on demolition and relocation was recognized as illegal." Yang Zaiming, chief of Beijing Zaiming, said.
Case 2: housing expropriation expropriation compensation standard dispute
Jining Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province
Administrative Judgment
(2012) Jining Initial No. 12
Plaintiff Kong xx, (Plaintiff's information from the brief)
Commissioned by the agent Wang Weizhou, Beijing Yijia Law Firm lawyers.
Appointed agent Feng Kai, male, born on April 1, 1984, Han nationality, Beijing
Beijing Yijia Law Firm Lawyer Assistant, living in Baoding City, Hebei Province, Lekai South Street.
Defendant swim water county people's government. Residence of sishui county west city new district.
Legal representative Feng Chong, county.
Attorney Li X, Shandong Sida law firm.
Attorney Li xx, male, born on March 17, 1984, Han nationality, Sishui
Sishui county housing and Jianxiang planning and construction bureau of real estate section director, live in Sishui county Longcheng Zhicun small
district.
Plaintiff Kong xx v. Surabaya county people's government housing expropriation decision, in 2012
June 11, 2012, filed an administrative litigation to this court. This court accepted, according to law, formed a collegial
The court on July 10, 2012, public hearing of this case. The plaintiff Kong xx and
its attorney Wang Weizhou, Feng Kai, the defendant Sishui county people's government attorney
Li Feng, Li Longqian to participate in the proceedings.
April 6, 2011, the defendant made the Surabaya government issued [2011] 15 "Surabaya County
People's Government of Surabaya County on the implementation of the Surabaya City, Surabaya River Road, East Forestry Bureau area and Surabaya River Road, West of the Gucheng Road, North
area of the implementation of housing expropriation decision", decided to implement the expropriation of housing in the area.
Hereinafter referred to as the Decision.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant made the Decision will include the plaintiff's house and construction
land and other appurtenances, including the house and land to be expropriated, the plaintiff is not convinced to
Jining People's Government filed an administrative reconsideration, the reconsideration of the defendant's behavior to be
Holding. The plaintiff believes that the defendant to make the specific administrative act is illegal, should be revoked. Facts
Facts and reasons: a. Expropriation compensation plan for comments is not 30 days, the procedure is illegal.
The defendant announced on March 3, 2011, the draft for comments, March 21, the end of the consultation
Input, April 6, 2011 to make a decision, the consultation is not in accordance with the provisions of the law. Secondly,
Housing Expropriation Compensation Program violates the law, Article 19 of the Regulations on Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land
"Compensation for the value of the house to be expropriated shall not be less than the market price of similar real estate of the house to be expropriated at the date of the announcement of the decision on the expropriation of the house
"In addition, the expropriated house was
The plaintiff only compensated for the expropriated houses, and did not compensate for the resumed state-owned land use rights,
also violated the provisions of Fifty-eight of the Chinese People's **** and State Land Administration Law. Thirdly,
the expropriation of houses and land is for the development of real estate, does not belong to the interests of the public ****, does not meet the conditions of the
expropriation: fourthly, the scope of expropriation contains a large amount of collective land, the defendant's behavior
has exceeded its authority to approve and approval, and does not comply with the construction project and land use planning, it should be withdrawn.
The plaintiff provided the following evidence: 1, Siji government issued [2011] No. 15 "Sishui county people
government on Sicheng Sihe road east forestry bureau area and Sihe road west of Gucheng road north area
implementation of housing star expropriation of the decision"; 2, ji political review word [2011] No. 62-65 "ji
Ning municipal people's government administrative reconsideration of the decision ; 3, housing and land ownership materials:
(1) the price list of compensation for ground attachments, (2) Chen Guoying and Sishui County First People's Hospital to buy
sale agreement, (3) on the disposal of the land east of the road within the School of Health, (4) Chen Guoying's certificate
Minimum, (5) Plaintiffs to obtain the land involved in the land and housing ownership of the note, (6) Sishui State Use (2000)
Word No. 083100000202-01 State-owned Land Use Right Certificate. Proof that the plaintiff's house in question
house within the scope of expropriation; 4, the former health further training school area residents of the certificate, proving that
Plaintiff has property in the health school; 5, Jijin political reconsideration of the word [2011] No. 29, "Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People's Government of the City of Jining
," proving that the scope of expropriation contains a large number of collective
land; 6, Sishui County Proof of Meteorological Bureau. To prove that the Defendant posted the compensation plan
request for comments on the photo of the obvious snow, and the date of snow is March 2011
1, the Defendant was posted on March 3 compensation plan request for comments
publication; if it was posted on February 20, 2011 compensation plan request for comments on the photo
could not be a lot of snow. snow on the photo, thus proving that the defendant's consultation on the compensation plan was not
full for 30 days: 7. A special letter of introduction for attorney's investigation.
The defendant Surabaya County People's Government replied that, first, on February 20, 2011, Surabaya
County People's Government issued and posted the "Surabaya City, Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau area and Surabaya River Road
West Gucheng Road North area of the comprehensive reconstruction of the housing expropriation compensation program (draft for comments)
announcement, on April 1 of the same year to determine the compensation program, expropriation compensation The
period for soliciting opinions on the plan has exceeded 30 days, which is in line with the relevant regulations. Second, the market price of similar real estate,
means the market price of real estate similar to the expropriated house at the point of time of assessment. The price of similar
real estate includes both the value of the expropriated house and the
value of the land use right, and the expropriation compensation plan does not violate the law. Third, the
expropriation of the houses in the area is a remodeling of the old city, which is needed for the public **** interest.
Fourth, the county government on June 22, 2011 made the "Surabaya County People's Government on the Surabaya government issued [2011] No. 15
the scope of housing expropriation announcement", the scope of the expropriation of the re-affirmation of the scope of the expropriation of the expropriation of the expropriation of the scope of the expropriation of housing for the state-owned land of the site, not including
collective land houses on collective land.
The defendant provided the following evidence: Exhibit 1-1, "Sihe Road West Gucheng Road North Area Forest
Bureau of Housing Expropriation Compensation Program Proof of the minutes of the meeting, and the meeting sign-in sheet, photos
. Proof that a meeting was held to demonstrate the housing acquisition compensation program for the area. Evidence
According to 1-2, "Announcement on the Compensation Program for House Expropriation for Compensation of Comprehensive Reconstruction of the East Forestry Bureau Area of Sihe Road and the North Area of West Gucheng Road of Sihe Road in Sicheng City (Draft for Opinion)", Attachment: "Compensation Program for House Expropriation for Compensation of Comprehensive Reconstruction of the East Forestry Bureau Area of Sihe Road and the North Area of West Gucheng Road of Sicheng City in Sicheng City," and the photos of the public announcement of compensation program and notarization. Proof of the area housing
House expropriation compensation program of the draft for public comment on the announcement of the public. Evidence 1-3, Surabaya
City Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau area and Surabaya River Road West Gucheng Road North area involving units and residents
People distribution of understanding paper, the meeting of the solicitation of opinions, signing up for the book and the site photographs. Proof of
The area compensation program held a meeting to solicit opinions. Exhibit 1 1 3, Sishui County People's Civil Affairs
Office of the Government on the issuance of Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau area and Surabaya River Road West Gucheng Road North area
District of illegal construction of the implementation of the program of the notice. Proof that the county government issued the case in question
Area illegal building identification implementation program: Exhibits 1-5, on the suspension of the Surabaya
City Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau Area and Surabaya River Road West Gucheng Road North Area within the scope of the relevant procedures
continuation of the letter. Exhibits 1-6, Announcement and posting
photographs of the County Government's announcement on the convening of the hearing on the compensation plan for housing expropriation in the East Forestry Bureau Area on Sihe Road in Siacheng and the North Area on West Gucheng Road on
Sihe Road. Proof of the announcement on the matter of convening a hearing on the compensation plan for house expropriation in the area
. Exhibits 1-7, Siacheng Sihe Road East Forestry Bureau area and Sihe Road West Gu
cheng Road North area of housing expropriation reconstruction project social stability risk assessment report. Proof of
conducted social stability risk assessment. Evidence 1-8, Siacheng Sihe Road East Forestry Bureau area
and Sihe Road West Gucheng Road North area of housing expropriation compensation program hearing notices
root. Proof that the hearing notified the relevant units. Exhibit l a 9, Siacheng Sihe Road East Lin
industry bureau area and Sihe Road West Gucheng Road North area of housing expropriation compensation program hearing
relevant materials and meeting place photos. Proof that the hearing on the housing expropriation compensation program was held. Evidence
Document 1-10, Sishui County People's Government 36th executive meeting minutes. It proves that an executive meeting of the county government was held on the housing expropriation and compensation work in the
area. Exhibit 1-11, Public Notice, Public Notice
Photographs and Notarization on
Solicitation of Opinions on the Compensation Plan for Housing Expropriation (Draft for Opinion) for the Comprehensive Reconstruction of the Area of Forestry Bureau on the East of Surabaya River Road and the Area of the North of Gucheng Road on the West of Surabaya River Road. Proof of publicity and notarization of the situation of soliciting opinions on the housing expropriation compensation plan
. Exhibit 1-12, Siji government issued (2011) No. 16 Sishui County people
ministerial government on the issuance of Sicheng Sihe Road East Forestry Bureau area and Sihe Road West Gucheng Road North
slice reconstruction of housing expropriation compensation program notice. Proof that the county government after consultation
issued Sicheng Sihe Road East Forestry Bureau area and Sihe Road West Gucheng Road North area alteration
construction of housing expropriation compensation program. Exhibit 1-13, proof of the inclusion of the 2011 urban shanty
household area old city renovation plan in the national economic and social development plan report in Sicheng County,
with a report on the implementation of the 2010 national economic and social development plan in Sicheng County and
the draft plan for 2011. Proof of inclusion of the project in the National Economic and Social Development
Plan. Exhibit 1-14, on the Siacheng Sihe Road East Forestry Bureau area and Sihe Road West Gu
Cheng Road North area in line with the Surabaya County Land Use Master Plan certificate. Proof that the expropriation of the
area is in line with Surabaya County urban land use master plan. Exhibit 1-15, on the ancient
city road north land water system landscape and urban renovation project planning review comments, with Surabaya County
city master plan. Proof that the project has passed the planning review and is in line with the city master
plan and related planning requirements. Exhibit 1-16, certificate of special funds for compensation for demolition of meandering.
Proof that the special funds for expropriation and compensation were in place in full before the decision on house expropriation was made. Exhibit 1
-17, resettlement house type map, proving the resettlement house type. Exhibit 1-18, Surabaya Zhengfa
(2011)No.15 Decision of Surabaya County People's Government on the Implementation of Housing Expropriation in the Forestry Bureau Area on the East of Surabaya River Road in Surabaya City
and the North Area of Gucheng Road on the West of Surabaya River Road. Exhibits 1-19, Announcement of the Decision of the People's Government of Surabaya
Surabaya County on the Implementation of the Housing Expropriation Decision on the Forestry Bureau Area on the East of Sihe Road and the North Area of the West Gucheng
Road of Sihe Road in Surabaya City, with the photos of the decision of the expropriation and the announcement.
Proof of the county government to implement the housing expropriation decision announcement. Exhibit 1-20, Siacheng Sihe
Road West Gucheng Road North Area Phase I housing expropriation mobilization meeting site photos. Proof of the convening of
Surabaya River Road, Surabaya City, West Gucheng Road, North Area, Phase I of the mobilization meeting for housing expropriation. Exhibit 1
-21, Sicheng Sihe Road, West Gucheng Road North Area, a housing expropriation investigation and registration notice.
Proof of Sicheng Sihe Road West Gucheng Road North Area, a phase of housing expropriation investigation and registration
publicized. Exhibit 1-22, Surabaya construction levy word (2011) 01 announcement, with a phase of levy
Landing houses and other information public notice and announcement, Surabaya construction levy word (2011) 01 announcement and photos.
Proof of the announcement on the selection of real estate price assessment agency. Exhibit 1-
23, power of attorney. It proves that the County Housing and Urban-Rural Planning and Construction Bureau entrusted the County Housing Acquisition Office
Office to be responsible for the specific work of housing acquisition and compensation in the area. The above evidence proves that the
appeal administrative action procedure is lawful. Exhibit 2: Announcement of the People's Government of Surabaya County on the scope of housing expropriation involved in Surabaya Zhengfa
[2011]No.15. Proof that the county government on the Surabaya
Government issued [2011] No. 15 involved in the scope of housing expropriation re-defined. Table
Make clear that within the scope of the Decision, only the houses on state-owned land will be expropriated, excluding the houses on collective land
. Exhibit 3: Jining Government Reconsideration Decision No. (2011) 62-65
Decision. It proves that the Jining government has upheld the
specific administrative act of the county government's decision on housing expropriation.
After the trial cross-examination, the plaintiff argued that the defendant submitted Exhibit 1-1, indicating that the collective land was included in the scope of the expropriation
. Exhibit 1-2 the solicitation and compensation plan photos
, the compensation plan photos and the defendant claimed notarized notarized solicitation
photos content is the same, at least one of them is replaced with other photos, the defendant claimed
content does not accord with the facts. Exhibits 1-3 Distribute understandable paper and RFPs, the meeting
did not see the revenues being solicited, and the number of attendees could not achieve the effect of solicitation. Exhibits 1
-4 violated the legal rights and interests of the expropriated person, the defendant's affiliation to the government
expropriation of the non-cooperation of the building is recognized as illegal, is evidence that the defendant violated the plaintiff and the expropriated person's legitimate
lawful rights and interests. Exhibits 1-5 Urban and Rural Construction Bureau is not a housing expropriation department and has no authority
to make the letter. Exhibits 1-6 are inconsistent with the facts. None of the expropriated persons had any knowledge of it. Exhibit 1
-7 The social risk assessment did not estimate the expropriated collective land, and the assessment made by this assessment report
is not legal. Exhibits 1-8 Most of the people who were notified to participate in the hearing were government agencies and departments to which the defendant belongs
, and the expropriated income was not notified and lacked the participation of the main stakeholders
. Exhibits 1-9 the number of people hearing is too small, the expropriated involves more than 900 households,
participation in the opinion of only a few households, resulting in the results of the hearing is unreasonable and unfair. Exhibit 1-12
Unlawful, the compensation method is unreasonable, the compensation is not determined according to the market price,
but a preferential price set by the county government. Exhibit 1-13 report has no official seal and cannot prove
its authenticity and is not recognized. Exhibits 1-14 do not conform to the Master Plan. The 20 million yuan in Exhibit 1
-16 cannot be recognized that the compensation for the expropriation is legal, nor can it satisfy the
compensatory funds for the demolition of the whole area. Exhibits 1-20 cannot prove that the expropriation is legal.
Evidence 1-22 fails to register all the expropriated people, indicating that the defendant's procedure is not
legal. The content expressed in Exhibit 2 notice is not in accordance with the facts. Exhibit 3 Reconsideration Decision
The content of the determination is not consistent with the facts. There is no objection to the other evidence submitted by the defendant.
The defendant argues that the sale and purchase agreement in Exhibit 3 submitted by the plaintiff is invalid, and that the
land is a state-owned asset, which has not been confirmed by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Bureau (SASAB). Exhibit 5 has been re-publicized by the county government
noting that it does not include collective land. Exhibit 6 does not prove the plaintiff's claim that snow fell
four times in February, so the snow stains on top of the photographs at the time of the public announcement on February 20 were snowfall on February 16th.
It cannot be shown to be the March 1 snowfall claimed by the plaintiff.
After cross-examination of the evidence for the following confirmation, the defendant submitted evidence 1-18, is the case
the specific administrative act, can not be used as evidence to prove the lawfulness of the administrative act;
the defendant to provide other evidence and the case has relevance to the defendant to make the specific administrative
procedural evidence of the act, to be proved fact has the power to prove, it is confirmed. Be recognized.
The plaintiff submitted evidence 1 is the specific administrative action, it is confirmed;
Evidence 2, 5 and the case has relevance, it is confirmed; evidence 3, 4 can prove
Plaintiff's house in the scope of the expropriation, it is confirmed; evidence 7 defendant has no objection, it is
confirmed. Exhibit 6 can prove the snowfall in February-March, but only based on the snow
stains on the photographs and the memory of the parties, not yet proved the plaintiff's claim.
The trial found the following facts, on April 6, 2011, the defendant made the Surabaya political hair
[2011)15 "Surabaya County People's Government on the Surabaya City, Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau piece of
district and the Surabaya River Road West Gucheng Road North piece of housing expropriation decision", including the plaintiff's
houses, including the houses of state-owned land of the area involved in the house To be expropriated, the plaintiff on the decision
decision, to the people's government of jining city administrative reconsideration, jizheng reconsideration [2011]
62-65 reconsideration decision of the defendant made the decision to be upheld. The plaintiff is not convinced
To this court filed a lawsuit.
Also found that the outsider Wang Qiang and other people because of the defendant made the decision, had
to the people's government of Jining city administrative reconsideration, the reconsideration organ after reconsideration that: the decision
the expropriation of the scope of the collective land of the house according to the state-owned land on the house
expropriated, belong to the determination of the fact is not clear. However, during the administrative reconsideration, the respondent Surabaya
Surabaya County People's Government made a Public Notice on the Scope of the Expropriation of the Houses Involved in Surabaya [2011]
No. 15 on June 22, 2011, to reassert the scope of the expropriation.
The Announcement partially changed the original specific administrative act, that is, revoked the original specific administrative act
for the part of the expropriation of houses on collective land. So on July 11, 2011 made
JiZheng Review Decision [2011] 29, confirming that the Decision involves
expropriation of houses on collective land part of the illegal.
The Court held that, according to Article 2
of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land, the expropriation of the houses of units and individuals on state-owned land
for the sake of public **** interests shall provide the owners of the houses to be expropriated with fair compensation. Article 19 of the Regulations
provides that compensation for the value of the expropriated house shall not be less than the market price of similar real estate on the date of the announcement of the decision on the expropriation of the house
. According to the spirit of the legislation
God, the compensation for the expropriated houses should refer to the price of newly built commercial houses in the neighboring area
, so that the living conditions and quality of life of the expropriated income will not be lowered after the expropriation of the houses
as appropriate. The expropriation compensation program formulated by the defendant in this case stipulates that, if monetary compensation is chosen,
the main house to be expropriated is compensated in accordance with the preferential price of the multi-storey property rights exchange resettlement house on the site,
the preferential price is obviously lower than the market price. For the property rights exchange, the resettlement house exceeds the main house
compensated for the part of the area funded by the expropriated income, exceeding 10 square meters or less according to the preferential
price of the settlement of housing prices, exceeding 10 square meters outside the part of the settlement of housing prices according to the market price; the expropriated main house area is greater than the resettlement house area of the part of the resettlement house in accordance with the resettlement house preferential price increased
300 yuan/ n1: the standard to give monetary compensation. The compensation price for the expropriated house is also obviously
less than the purchase price of the expropriated person's contribution. Compensation program of the above provisions of the expropriated income
obviously unfair, in violation of the "state-owned land housing expropriation and compensation regulations," the second,
Article 19, according to the law should be withdrawn. The trial committee of this court decided,
in accordance with the provisions of the Chinese people's **** and the State Administrative Litigation Law, Article 54 (2) item 2
the provisions of the judgment is as follows:
Revoke the defendant Surabaya County People's Government made on April 6, 2011 Surabaya County People's Government issued
[2011] No. 15, "the people's government of Surabaya County on the Surabaya City Surabaya River Road East Forestry Bureau Area
Area and Surabaya River Road West Gucheng Road North Area to implement housing expropriation decision".
The case acceptance fee of 50 yuan shall be borne by the defendant Sishui County People's Government.
If you do not accept this judgment, you may, within fifteen days from the date of service of the judgment, file a statement of appeal to this court
and file copies in accordance with the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the Shandong Province
Higher People's Court.
Judge Chen Qingwen
Judge Zhang Ling
Judge Li Chuanping
Intermediate People's Court of Jining City, Shandong Province
September 6, 2012
Registrar Wang Li