今日有效微信群二维码

010-5318-6190, 400-150-9288
    NEWS News Center
    [MORE]
    Field Field of expertise
    [MORE]
    CASE Case selection [MORE]
    Housing demolition case
    • 黑龙江房屋征收:三诉三胜、四战四捷,律师为拆迁户争得满意补偿
      Updated
      - Nov - 27 2019 - Nov - 27
      Heilongjiang house expropriation: three v. Three wins, four wars, four wins, lawyers obtain satisfaction compensation for the relocated households
      Brief introduction of the case: Yu A, Yu B and four others were residents of Baoqing Town, Baoqing County. On March 22, 2012, the People's Government of Baoqing County made a decision on the area of plots F-01 and J-01 in the Qing District of Baoqing Town (east of Broadcasting Road, west of Yongfa Road, north of Central Street, and south of Qinggang Lane). The expropriation of the houses in Yu A, Yu B and his mother Pan Yuzhi (deceased) is within the scope of the expropriation. On August 8, 2013, the People's Government of Baoqing County issued Baozheng Turang (2013) No. 8 "Approval on Land Use for Phase I Construction Project of Jinxiu New City Community" (hereinafter referred to as "Approval"), which is Yongtai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. obtained the right to use the construction land in the J-01 (A-02) parcel of Baoqing Qing District by way of listing, with a land area of 16,800.00 square meters. The land is used for general commercial housing. The land use period is 40 years for commerce and 70 years for dwellings. Within 30 days, the county land and resources bureau shall apply for registration. Yu A and others had compensation disputes with the county government. There were many negotiations but it was difficult to reach an agreement. The local government repeatedly claimed that they would be demolished. Yu A and others decided to hire a lawyer to protect their rights and interests. After many inquiries, Yu A They found Beijing Wandian Law Firm, which appointed Liu Lei and Feng Kai to handle the case. The lawyer believes that the land involved in the case is not a clean land, and the attachments on Yu A and Yu B's house are on the land involved. Without legal compensation, the land cannot be transferred in accordance with the law. Therefore, a legal procedure was initiated for the land transfer approval and the request was cancelled. In the battle for land approval, three verdicts were won, and the municipal government completely lost 1 The first verdict: Yu A, Yu B submitted an application for administrative reconsideration to the Shuangyashan People's Government, and received the Shuangyashan People's Government on January 20, 2015. "Decision not to accept the application for administrative review". Yu A, Yu B refused to appeal to the court. On June 8, 2015, the Jixi Intermediate People's Court made an administrative judgment (2015) Jixing Chuzi No. 1, revoking the decision not to accept the application for administrative reconsideration, and ordered the people's government of Shuangyashan City. The application for administrative reconsideration will be accepted in Party A and Party B within 5 days after the judgment becomes effective. 2 The second judgment Shuangyashan City People's Government accepted Yu A in accordance with the court's judgment. After B's application for administrative reconsideration, Yu A, Yu B's house is not within the scope of the land for sale. Yu A, Yu B and the "Reply" did not. On the grounds of interest, according to Article 48 (1) (b) of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China" ...
    • 【拆迁律师】山东菏泽拆迁案:房屋被违建,连发三道“金牌令”!案件将如何反转?
      Updated
      - Nov - 26 2019 - Nov - 26
      [Demolition lawyer] Shandong Heze demolition case: The house was illegally built, and three "gold medal orders" were issued in succession! How will the case be reversed?
      [Demolition lawyer] Shandong Heze demolition case: The house was illegally built, and three "gold medal orders" were issued in succession! How will the case be reversed? In the demolition cases handled by Lawyer Wan Dian: Many people's houses were not demolished before their houses were forcibly demolished. Therefore, many cases of forcible demolitions caused prosecution departments to lose their suits and bear corresponding legal responsibilities. . But with the deepening of governing the country according to law, the behavior of the administrative department as the expropriator has become more and more standardized. Before demolishing the house, the parties involved in the case not only received a notice of restriction on removal, but also a notice of urging and a decision to demolish. The three documents were issued in succession, and the procedure was improved a lot. So what will happen in the case? Plaintiff: Yang XX Acting Attorney: Wang Weizhou Lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm Kang Jing Beijing Wandian Law Firm Pan Xue Beijing Wandian Law Firm Intern Lawyer Defendant: Tancheng County Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau Case Brief Three consecutive "Gold Medals" Order "In 2016, the houses on Mr. Yang's homestead were included in the expropriation scope because of the shantytown renovation project. On May 5, 2016, the shantytown reconstruction work leading group commissioned an appraisal company in Shandong to evaluate Mr. Yang's house and issued the house appraisal result. The shantytown renovation work leading group did not identify Yang X's house as illegal. Due to dissatisfaction with the compensation standard determined by the collection department, the compensation standard is really too low. Mr. Yang failed to reach an agreement with the collection department on the issue of compensation and signed a demolition agreement. In order to cooperate with the demolition work of the expropriator, Houcheng County Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau determined that the house of Yang XX was an illegal building based on a paper certificate from the street office. On March 15, 2019, he directly issued a notice of removal restriction to Mr. Yang. Mr. Yang's family is very puzzled, why the house that they have been living at has become an illegal construction at this time. On March 26, the "Advice on Administrative Decisions" was issued, and later the "Decision on Forced Demolition" was issued. Consecutive three documents forced Mr. Yang to sign an agreement. Immediately afterwards, Mr. Yang's house was forcibly demolished. Attendance by Wan Dian Demolition Lawyer At this time, Mr. Yang was at a loss. After a friend's introduction, Mr. Yang decided to entrust Beijing Wan Dian Law Firm to protect his rights. court...
    • 【拆迁律师】安徽蚌埠强拆案:征收范围内,屡次偷拆,均不承认,高院推定征收方为强拆主体!
      Updated
      - Nov - 25 2019 - Nov - 25
      [Demolition Attorney] Anhui Bengbu Demolition Case: Within the scope of the expropriation, repeated stealing has not been recognized.
      [Demolition Attorney] Bengbu Demolition Case in Anhui: Within the scope of the expropriation, repeated stealing has not been recognized. Plaintiff: Zhou XX Liu XX Liang XX Lu XX Attorney: Wang Ling Lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm Feng Kai Lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm Defendant: Yuhui District People's Government refused to admit it, and the lawyer involved in December 2015 On the 2nd, [2015] decision on house expropriation was made. Ms. Zhou's house was within the expropriation scope. The houses include both houses with legal property rights and self-built simple houses. To complete the levy, the levyer tried to steal the house, thereby reducing compensation. Because Ms. Zhou and others refused to sign the compensation and resettlement agreement, the expropriator forced the demolition by using water, power, and traffic. On April 16, 2018, the expropriator directly demolished the self-built house and damaged the house with legal property rights. Fortunately, Ms. Zhou and others had a strong sense of evidence, and then dialed 110 to call the police. At the same time, many parties inquired and found two lawyers Wang Ling and Feng Kai of Beijing Wandian Law Firm to protect their legal rights. The two lawyers believe that the expropriator will continue to demolish, and suggest that Ms. Zhou and others start litigation on the one hand, and pay more attention on the other. The expropriator usually steals the demolition when there is no one at night, and refuses to recognize the demolition afterwards. On October 19, 2018, Sun XX, a staff member of the Yuhui District Government, led the excavator to steal the house of Ms. Zhou again. Sun XX and others wanted to leave the site and was found by Ms. Zhou. After analysis, it is presumed that the two lawyers of the eligible defendant passed a series of analysis and believed that the main body of the house removal on April 16 was the Yuhui District Government. 1. Passed Zhou XX (2017) Wan 03 Xingchu 93, Bengbu, Anhui Province. Administrative Judgment of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court, the Judgment of the Second Trial and the Reply of the People's Government of Yuhui District, Liu XX (2017) Wan 03 Xingchu No. 94 "Administrative Judgment of the Bengbu Intermediate People's Court of Anhui Province", the Judgment of Second Trial and the People of Yuhui The government's statement of defense can determine that it is not a common practice of the Yuhui District People ’s Government to steal the demolition, but in the end, the Bengbu Intermediate People ’s Court proceeded from the basic facts, combined with the legal concepts and responsible logic of the responsible government and the honest government. Make a reasonable judgment: confirm according to law ...
    • 【拆迁律师】河南征收案:未入户调查,评估违法,起诉后,法院撤销房屋补偿决定
      Updated
      - Nov - 21 2019 - Nov - 21
      [Demolition Attorney] Henan Collection Case: No Home Investigation, Evaluation of Illegal Law, After Prosecution, the Court Cancels House Compensation Decision
      [Demolition Lawyer] Henan Collection Case: No home investigation, evaluation of violations, after the lawsuit was cancelled, the court cancelled the house compensation decision. Plaintiff: Ye XX Sun XX Li XX Attorney: Chen Haifeng Beijing Wandian Law Firm Xiao Yirong Beijing Wandian Law Firm Defendant : The house of Mr. Ye et al. And the house of Ms. Jin in the case of the People's Government of Luoyang City are located in the same expropriation project. The difference from the case of Ms. Jin is that Mr. Ye did not sign a compensation agreement, but received a house expropriation from the expropriator. Compensation decision. Facing such a low compensation standard, Mr. Ye hoped that the professional protection of the demolition lawyers could improve the compensation and protect his legitimate rights and interests. So he commissioned Beijing Wandian Law Firm Chen Haifeng and Xiao Yirong to represent the case. Brief introduction of the case In 2018, the People's Government of the West District issued a house expropriation decision. The houses of Mr. Ye and others were within the expropriation scope. After the requisition party released the house compensation plan, Mr. Ye and others refused to sign the agreement because of dissatisfaction with the compensation. After that, the expropriator directly makes a house expropriation compensation decision. However, the house had not been demolished by the requisitioner until Mr. Ye and others took remedy or litigation relief. The two lawyers found a lot of violations: Mr. Ye's house was for commercial use, and when he was compensated, he missed the loss of suspension of production and business. Moreover, no on-site investigation was carried out for the individual household evaluation report of the house, which means that it is illegal to make the evaluation report, resulting in extremely low compensation. If you want reasonable compensation for Mr. Ye and others, then you need to overturn the illegal compensation decision. In addition, the expropriator has no right to eviction, and should apply for judicial eviction from the people's court in accordance with the relevant laws. So the two lawyers decided to sue. In a case of forced demolition, the two lawyers requesting confirmation of illegal demolition believe that: 1. The defendant does not have the right of enforcement, and the subject of the defendant's forced demolition is illegal. Article 53 of the "Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China" and Article 28 of the "Regulations on the Collection and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land" stipulated that the defendant had no right to enforce the plaintiff's house before the expiry of the plaintiff's time limit. If the defendant enforces the plaintiff's house, the defendant should also apply to the people's court for enforcement according to law. This case is an administrative compulsory act in the process of house expropriation. The defendant has issued Xizhengbuzhizi [2019] No. 1 "People's Government of Xigong District ...
    Shop demolition case
    • 安徽高院案例:商铺拆迁补偿低,拆迁律师对症下药,圆满解决难题!
      Updated
      - Oct - 17 2019 - Oct - 17
      Case of Anhui High Court: Compensation for the demolition of shops is low, and the demolition lawyers take the appropriate measures to solve the problem successfully!
      [Demolition Lawyer] Case of Anhui High Court: The compensation for the demolition of the shop is low. Plaintiff: Ms. Lu Acting Lawyer: Feng Kai, Beijing Wandian Law Firm Lawyer Wang Ling, Beijing Wandian Law Firm Lawyer Miao Shasha, Beijing Wandian Law Firm Lawyer (Intern) Attorney Defendant: Bengbu City X People's Government Case Briefing Levy, Compensation It was difficult to reach agreement. Ms. Lu from Bengbu City, Anhui, was dissatisfied with the compensation. After inquiries from various parties, she found three lawyers, Feng Kai, Wang Ling, and Miao Shasha (Beijing Wandian Law Firm). And state your own collection difficulties. In December 2015, the expropriator X area government issued an expropriation announcement. In order to implement the shantytown renovation and old city reconstruction, it was decided to expropriate the area where Ms. Lu's shop was located. It also announced the inquiry method of the compensation plan. Ms. Lu's shop area is more than 60 square meters, and there are more than 10 square meters of self-built houses. Due to dissatisfaction with the compensation, Ms. Lu has never signed a compensation agreement. In June 2017, the district government directly made a house acquisition compensation decision and delivered it to Ms. Lu. Demolition lawyers found all kinds of violations. The three lawyers investigated and found that: 1. The house acquisition decision was not stamped by the relevant agencies. The house acquisition decision is the premise of making a compensation decision, and its legality directly determines the legality of the compensation decision. 2. The collection decision and compensation plan should be announced at the same time, and the publicity date shown on the compensation plan is December 20, and the collection decision is December 2. 3. The evaluation agency was not determined by Ms. Lu and the house expropriation department, nor was it a majority decision, which deprived the expropriated person of the right to choose an evaluation agency. ... and so on. There are many violations. After discussion, the three lawyers decided to sue for the house expropriation decision. The lawyer believes that: 1. The defendant's illegal imposition of house expropriation cannot make a decision on compensation to the plaintiff. 1. The plaintiff's house did not meet the conditions for the shantytown transformation and the old city transformation, and the defendant imposed illegal imposition of the plaintiff's house. 2. The defendant violated Article 9 of the "Regulations on the Collection and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land", and the construction activities of house collection in this area did not conform to the national economic and social development plan, overall land use plan, urban and rural planning, special planning and national Annual plan for economic and social development. 3. The defendant did not pass the social stability risk assessment before making the collection decision without the district government executive meeting ...
    • 一户二宅,街道办超越权限以违建强拆,判决确认违法!
      Updated
      - Aug - 2 2019 - Aug - 2
      One house, two houses, the street office exceeded the authority to demolish the building, and the verdict was confirmed to be illegal!
      Plaintiff: Wu xx Wu xx Wu xx Wu xx Acting attorney: Liu Lei Wang Ling Lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm Defendant: Lanxi City xx Sub-district Office Case Introduction The four Ms. Wu in this case are four sisters. Father's. Wu's father is a villager of XX Village in Lanxi City. Two houses were built in the village in the 1980s. One building covers an area of 105.80 square meters, and the other has 74.20 square meters. Both houses obtained collective land use permits with the consent of the Lanxi Municipal Government. In 2010, the Wu family's parents died. The four sisters reached an agreement with their elder brother. The first house was owned by the elder brother and the second house was shared by the four sisters (the house is a business house with a business license). In 2017, the Lanxi Municipal Government included the village in the demolition area, and Wu's father signed a compensation agreement with the Subdistrict Office for the first house. What the four sisters never expected was that on April 8, 2018, the Subdistrict Office directly demolished the house, and the sisters of the Wu family, who lived here, suffered heavy losses and became homeless. The four sisters decided to entrust lawyers Liu Lei and Wang Ling of Beijing Wandian Law Firm to intervene in the case. After the lawyer intervened in the case, he believed that, in accordance with Article 45 of the Implementation Regulations of the Land Management Law, in violation of the land management laws and regulations and blocking the state's construction of land acquisition, the land administrative department of the people's government at or above the county level shall order the land to be handed over. Those who refuse to surrender the land shall apply to the people's court for compulsory enforcement. The law does not give the sub-district office the power to demolish the land during relocation. Secondly, the Subdistrict Office does not have the power to investigate and punish illegal construction. Even if it is an illegal building, its dismantling needs to go through a reminder procedure, and the Subdistrict Office will demolish the house without fulfilling any formalities, which obviously violates the relevant laws and regulations. Finally, as an administrative organ, the Subdistrict Office publicly and illegally demolished the plaintiff's house without fulfilling the legal procedures, making the plaintiff homeless and dwelling-free. His actions have trampled on the law and violated the plaintiff's basic right to life. Trampling should pursue the legal responsibility of the person responsible and compensate the plaintiff for the loss. At the trial of the court, the Sub-district Office argued that the four plaintiffs had moved out to become non-agricultural households, neither the villagers in the village nor the owners of the house. They believed that they had no right to file a lawsuit, and that the main body of the plaintiff was not qualified. According to the "Land Management Law" and the regulations of Zhejiang Province for three reforms and one demolition, it is considered that the house involved in the case belongs to one family and two houses and must be demolished. In this case, the sub-district office is the administrative organ,
    • 湖南湘潭:“商住房”按照住宅补偿,万典律师维权撤销房屋征收补偿决定!
      Updated
      - July - 25 2019 - July - 25
      Xiangtan, Hunan: "Commercial housing" is based on housing compensation. Lawyer Wan Dian defends his rights to revoke the compensation decision for housing collection!
      Plaintiff: Nie XX, Lei XX, Liu XX, etc. Attorney: Kang Jing, Beijing Wandian Law Firm, Lawyer Defendant: Yuetang District People's Government, Xiangtan City Case Brief: Ms. Nie and other 6 people are located in Yuetang District, Xiangtan City × × Street × Property rights of house number ×. On June 22, 2016, due to the needs of the shantytown renovation project in the XX area, the Yuetang District government requisitioned the area where the house of Ms. Nie and others was located, and issued a house acquisition notice and posted it within the scope of the acquisition. The project name was determined as The shantytown reconstruction project in XX area (Plot No. X), the main body of house acquisition is Yuetang District Government. Due to dissatisfaction with the compensation issue, the 6 requisitioned persons repeatedly reported the situation to the relevant departments, indicating that they held different opinions and did not agree with the requisition, but the district government did not listen to any opinions. Ms. Nie and others refused to sign the compensation and resettlement agreement. As a result, the house expropriation compensation decision made by the district government was received directly. This means that the house faces compulsory expropriation, and then drags on, the house cannot be maintained in the future, and it is more difficult to increase the compensation! Lawyer Wan Dian was entrusted to defend his rights. In order to force Ms. Nie and others to relocate, the government department used all means, destroying the road in front of the door, maliciously stacking garbage, and constructing a fence to prevent Ms. Nie and others from using the house. The purpose is to hope that these requisitioned people can move quickly. In desperation, Ms. Nie and others inquired and consulted in various ways, found Beijing Wandian Law Firm, and decided to entrust lawyer Kang Jing to represent the case. After Mr. Kang got involved in the case, he found that the use stated in the house and property certificate of Nie X and others was commercial and residential, but the compensation decision was compensated according to the standard of the house. This is the crux! However, based on the current evidence, to win a perfect victory, the district government needs more favorable support. Therefore, application for project approval, planning, environmental assessment and other information disclosure. Prosecution to revoke the decision of house expropriation compensation At this time, the decision of house expropriation compensation has expired. Attorney Kang decided to revoke the decision of house expropriation compensation. The use of the layer was wrongly identified, and its compensation seriously infringed upon the plaintiff's legal rights. The houses of the four plaintiffs, Lei XX, Qiu XX, Nie X, and Liu XX, are all three-story. The use stated in the real estate certificate is for commercial and residential use. The housing inquiry provided by the defendant also states that the use of the three-story houses is for commercial use, but The defendant has since ...
    • 浙江温岭:多次下达限拆通知!万典律师介入,街道办强拆违法!
      Updated
      - June - 17 2019 - June - 17
      Wenling, Zhejiang: Notice of Restriction on Demolition is issued many times! Lawyer Wan Dian intervened, it was illegal to force the street office to demolish!
      Plaintiff: Zheng XX Ruan XX XX Hotel Attorney: Feng Kaikang Jing Beijing Wandian Law Firm Lawyer Defendant: Status of the house involved in the case of XX Subdistrict Office of Wenling City Zheng Duan and Ruan Suqin, built in 1982, are two or three-story buildings In 1987, the first three floors were squared. At the end of 1992, two floors were added to the three-story building. At the same time, one floor was added to the roof of the three bungalows. It was not registered for historical reasons. The owner of the house is jointly owned by Mr. Zheng and his ex-wife. Later, due to the need for expropriation of the old city reconstruction project, Mr. Zheng, the owner of the house within the scope of the expropriation, failed to reach an agreement with the expropriation department on the issue of compensation and signed a demolition agreement. The house involved has been operating the hotel business, and the person in charge is Mr. Zheng. Notices for multiple demolition restrictions were issued on November 30, 2017. The Office of the Leading Group of the Three Renovation and Demolition Action Subdivision of the Sub-district Office issued a notice of demolition of illegal buildings within a time limit, ordering the hotel to be vacated immediately and demolished on its own due to the potential safety hazards. On December 5, 2017, the Subdistrict Office demolished the house directly without notice. At this time, Mr. Zheng found that the situation was serious. Attorney Feng Kai and Kang Jing of Beijing Wandian Law Firm were found, and they decided to entrust two lawyers to intervene in the case. The Sub-district Office issued a total of three notices on the demolition of the houses involved, one to Mr. Zheng (which has been revoked after reconsideration), one to the hotel, and one to Ms. Ruan (Mr. Zheng's ex-wife). So, which part of the area does the specific demolition restriction notice point to? It is completely impossible to see from the notice of demolition within a time limit. The defendant made three notices of demolition restriction on the houses involved in the case, and the subjects were different, the targets were not clear, and it was clearly determined that the facts were unclear. The lawyer believes that at the time of the levy, Mr. Zheng's incomplete house was deemed to be illegal. The purpose should be to force Zheng Duan to agree to the demolition to reduce the cost of demolition and promote the demolition process. His behavior is not a fair law enforcement and is not justified. . After discussion, the lawyer decided to conduct an administrative reconsideration first. The two lawyers raised their agency opinions from the perspective of the illegal procedures, the lack of corresponding procedures for historical reasons, and the errors in the applicable laws of the Subdistrict Office. As a result, the restriction notice issued to Mr. Zheng was revoked. The notice on the demolition restriction issued to the hotel was cancelled by the court due to lack of factual basis. Forced demolition was found to be illegal. According to Articles 35, 37, and 44 of the Administrative Enforcement Law, before the forced demolition of houses, procedures such as reminders must be performed, and the street ...
    Enterprise Demolition Case
    • 【企业拆迁律师】山东高院案例:违反先补后拆,强拆不合法,征收方上诉还是被驳回!
      Updated
      - Sept - 17 2019 - Sept - 17
      [Enterprise Demolition Lawyer] Case of Shandong High Court: Violation of make-up before demolition, forced demolition is illegal, and the levy party's appeal is still rejected!
      [Enterprise Demolition Lawyer] Case of Shandong High Court: Violation of make-up before demolition, forced demolition is illegal, and the levy party's appeal is still rejected! Appellant: Jining X District Jining X District Street Office Appellee: Xie XX Yang XX Xie XX Xie XX Acting Attorney: Liu Lei Xiao Yirong Lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm Brief introduction Mr. Xie's family owns a certain village in Jining Legal houses, thank a family member for production and operation in the house involved. Later, due to the shantytown renovation project, Xie family houses were included in the scope of acquisition. Due to reasons such as the district government's failure to collect according to law and unreasonable compensation standards, Mr. Xie did not sign a compensation and resettlement agreement. In the early morning of October 11, 2018, the district government organized the staff of various government departments such as public security and special police fire protection to use an excavator to forcibly demolish the house. Because the lawyers of Beijing Wandian Law Firm handled a lot of cases in Jining, word of mouth is better. So he entrusted lawyers Wan Lei and Xiao Yirong to intervene in the case. In the administrative lawsuit, the first trial confirmed that the illegal demolition was illegal. The two lawyers believed that the government had not issued a collection announcement and collection decision in accordance with the law, nor had it issued a compensation compensation and resettlement plan. The government has not signed a compensation and resettlement agreement with Xie and other persons, nor has it made a decision on house acquisition or ordered the surrender of land in accordance with the law, in violation of the provisions of compensation before demolition. In addition, the XX district government neither made a enforcement decision on the plaintiff in accordance with the law nor applied for the enforcement of the people's court in accordance with the law, and had no right to enforce the demolition of the plaintiff's house. Prior to forced demolishment, legal procedures such as advance notice, hearing the parties' statements of defense, enforcement decisions, and announcements were not performed in accordance with the law. There is a premise for the implementation of compulsory demolition, that is, it has the right to enforce. However, the defendant does not have the right to enforce. The failure to reach agreement on compensation is indeed an unreasonable and unfair compensation, which cannot guarantee its long-term livelihood and living standard In this case, the relevant department should make a decision to order the surrender of land in accordance with the law, and then apply to the people's court for enforcement, rather than directly forcibly dismantling the demolition. For the public interest, the last resort is not the reason for the defendant's illegal administration. Administration according to law is the basic principle of administrative law. For the government, the law prohibits it without authorization. Since the law does not give the government the right to enforce the act of expropriation, the government ...
    • 【企业拆迁律师】山东临沂案例 :厂房拆迁补偿拉锯战,圆满结案!
      Updated
      - Sept - 16 2019 - Sept - 16
      [Corporate Demolition Lawyer] Case Study in Linyi, Shandong: Compensation tug-of-war for factory demolition compensation, successfully closed the case!
      [Corporate Demolition Lawyer] Case Study in Linyi, Shandong: Compensation tug-of-war for factory demolition compensation, successfully closed the case! Plaintiff: Mr. Du, Mr. Chen, Attorney: Liu Lei Lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm Briefing on April 3, 2014, the People's Government of a county in Linyi City, Shandong issued the “Investment Information on Construction Project of New City Passenger Station”, on this basis The passenger station occupies part of the land in XX Village, Shilulu Sub-district, and resettlement compensation will be given to the residents who have agreed to relocate. On May 30, 2014, the village committee issued a notice asking the demolition households involved in the passenger station to complete the relocation before June 6. The factory building where Mr Du has the legal right to use is located within the scope of collection. Unexpectedly, in order to force the relocation, on June 6, Mr. Du received a notice of administrative penalty directly stating that Mr. Du's building was an illegal building and asked for the return of the land and a fine of more than 50,000 yuan. Not only that, but also water and electricity. Mr. Du was so anxious that I heard that Liu Lei, a lawyer from Beijing Wandian Law Firm, had handled many cases in Linyi, Shandong. The parties were very satisfied. Wandian has become a trusted word of mouth in the local area! Therefore, he decided to entrust lawyer Liu Lei to represent the case. Mr. Du handed the evidence such as the land certificate to the lawyer and stated the case. Lawyers found that there were many violations. Among them, forced removal such as water and power is prohibited by law. If the land has been acquired, compensation should be in place before relocation. The lawyer with a two-pronged approach to reconsideration and litigation first submitted an application for reconsideration to the municipal government, asking for confirmation that the specific administrative action of the county people's government to requisition the land in Village X was illegal. The respondent was ordered to stop performing illegal acts. The lawyer believes that: 1. The people's government actually carried out the specific administrative action of land acquisition. The people's government has set up a headquarters and developed a XX manual for construction work. Some houses around the plant have been demolished and a lot of construction waste has been piled up. And the people's government has commissioned an evaluation company to evaluate the houses expropriated within the scope of the applicant and issued an evaluation publicity form; the intent and joint illegal power outages and water outages such as the Power Supply Bureau and the Economic and Credit Bureau are sufficient to prove the implementation of a large number of Collection behavior. The county government did not issue a formal written document to avoid responsibility. The village committee claims to be the government, and the behavior of the two evading each other and kicking the ball is typical. 2. The specific behavior of land expropriation implemented by the people's government violates relevant laws and regulations. So far, the project has not obtained any approval procedures and related administrative permit procedures. Secondly, the plaintiff also ...
    • 【企业拆迁律师】江苏徐州:逼迁新手段,不服屡次败诉,认定15年前土地转让合同无效!
      Updated
      - Aug - 20 2019 - Aug - 20
      [Enterprise Demolition Lawyer] Xuzhou, Jiangsu: New method of forced relocation, disapproved of repeated defeats, and determined that the land transfer contract 15 years ago was invalid!
      Defendant: XX Industrial Company XX Material Factory Acting Lawyer: Liu Lei, Wang Ling, Jiang Quan Lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm [Corporate Demolition Lawyer] This is a dispute over a land transfer contract caused by land acquisition. During the demolition, Mr. Liu, the legal representative, entrusted three lawyers, Liu Lei, Wang Ling, and Jiang Quan, of Wan Dian Law Firm to file a lawsuit. Speaking of Mr. Liu, he had previously commissioned Wan Dian because of the levy, so he trusted the lawyer's professional level and ability to decide to re-entrust it. At this point, the house collection decision has been revoked. In order to force the two parties to reach an agreement, the neighborhood committee responsible for the acquisition suddenly proposed that the land transfer contract 15 years ago was invalid. In August 2003, the neighborhood committee and the industrial company signed a land transfer agreement, agreeing to transfer XX land and plant to XX industrial company for 1.0431 million yuan. In December, the company signed a land transfer agreement with Mr. Liu, and Mr. Liu will repay the transfer money owed. In the second year, the state-owned land use right certificate was obtained for the material factory. The land involved in the case has formed transaction stability, and the persons involved have obtained in good faith the establishment, alteration, transfer, and extermination of the real property right of Article 9 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China. , Except as otherwise required by law. Natural resources that are legally owned by the state may not be registered. The land involved in the case has been registered in the name of the defendant on July 6, 2004. It has been 15 years since it played a role of publicity and credibility. The defendant has transformed and expanded the land involved in the case, expanded production, and once scaled production. It was very large, and later became unoperable due to the collection. The contract between the neighborhood committee and the XX company is legal and valid, and has been performed. There are no facts and legal reasons for confirming the invalidity. Similarly, the contract between the XX company and Mr. Liu has also been performed, and they are all third parties in good faith. In addition, the land involved in the case has been submitted for invalidity 15 years later, which violates the principle of good faith and seriously undermines the stability of the transaction. The land use right has been registered in the defendant's name, and the defendant has been using it publicly. It should be regarded as the government's approval. If it is invalid, the government will inevitably lose its credibility. Article 14 of the "Law of the People's Republic of China" on the establishment, alteration, transfer and extinction of real property rights shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of the law, and shall be effective when recorded in the real property register ...
    • 【拆迁律师】没有合法有效的评估报告,可否作出征收补偿决定?
      Updated
      - Aug - 6 2019 - Aug - 6
      [Demolition Attorney] Is there a legal and valid evaluation report, can I make a compensation decision?
      [Demolition Attorney] Is there a legal and valid evaluation report, can I make a compensation decision? Is it possible to make an expropriation compensation decision without a valid and valid assessment report? Hebei Shenma XX Co., Ltd. v. Hebei Juxian County People's Government Expropriation Compensation Decision Case Guide This case is a case of expropriation of houses on state-owned land. Determination of the value of requisitioned houses. Article 19 of the "Requisition and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land" clearly stipulates that compensation for the value of requisitioned houses must not be lower than the market value of similar real estate of requisitioned houses on the date of the announcement of the decision on house requisition. Correspondingly qualified real estate price appraisal agencies have determined according to the evaluation method of house expropriation, and cannot make compensation decision for house expropriation without evaluation according to law. Basic facts Hebei Shenma XX Co., Ltd. is a legally registered enterprise legal person registered with the industrial and commercial administration. Its registered business covers the houses and ancillary facilities, etc., issued by the People's Government of Shexian County, Hebei Province on June 15, 2012. The Announcement of the New City Plaza Project House Acquisition (No. 4) (hereinafter referred to as the "House Acquisition Decision") was determined to be within the scope of the acquisition. On May 12, 2014, the People's Government of Shexian County, Hebei Province issued the “Decision on Compensation for Land Acquisition of Houses of the People's Government of Shexian County” [2014] No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Decision on Acquisition and Compensation”); Hebei Shenma XX Co., Ltd. did not accept Hebei The "Debt Collection Compensation Letter" made by the People's Government of Shexian County applied for administrative reconsideration to the People's Government of Baoding City on June 30, 2014. The People's Government of Baoding City made the main content on August 28, 2014 to maintain the "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" of "Acquisition Compensation Decision" (Baozhengxing Reconsideration [2014] No. 16). Hebei Shenma XX Co., Ltd. refused to accept the decision made by Baoding People's Government's "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" (Baozheng Xingfu Ju [2014] No. 16) and entrusted lawyer Liu Lei of Beijing Wandian Law Firm to file a lawsuit and request the revocation of Yixian County, Hebei Province. The People's Government issued the "Decision of Collection and Compensation" and ceased the implementation of house expropriation of Hebei Shenma XX Co., Ltd. The trial of the first instance court confirmed that the People's Government of Shexian County, Hebei Province, on June 15, 2012, issued the Announcement on the Expropriation of Houses in the New City Plaza Project (No. 4). The construction project, expropriation scope, expropriation department, The implementation unit of the expropriation, the expiration date of the expropriation, the right of the expropriated to apply for administrative reconsideration, and the right to bring an administrative lawsuit will be announced ...
    Land acquisition case
    • 【山东案例】万典律师再次出马,101位老农民征地养老保险问题圆满解决!
      Updated
      - Nov - 18 2019 - Nov - 18
      [Case in Shandong] Attorney Wan Dian was launched again, and the problem of 101 old farmers' land acquisition and endowment insurance was successfully resolved!
      101 people from the plaintiff, Li Moumou, and other agents appointed by Chen Haifeng, a lawyer from Beijing Wandian Law Firm, Xia Tao, a lawyer from Beijing Wandian Law Firm, and the defendant from the Huimin County People ’s Government. The plaintiff Li Moumou and other 101 people are farmers in Huimin County, Shandong Province. The land has legal contracted land and ownership of the house. In early 2008, the defendant Huimin County People's Government organized the implementation of the Cultural Street Urban Village Reconstruction and Guotai Huayuan Commercial Pedestrian Street Project, and contracted the plaintiff's contracted land and residential houses into the scope of collection. Since then, the compensation for land acquisition and the resettlement housing county government have been implemented, but the issue of pension insurance benefits for land-expropriated farmers has not been practically resolved. At the end of April 2008, the land acquisition supplementary clauses clearly stipulated that all residents who reached the age of 60 and the age of 55 would enjoy a pension of 150 yuan per person per month until death. This amount is borne by the county government, and pensions are adjusted as policy floats. According to the above agreement, the county government only paid an annual pension to the land-expropriated farmers eligible for insurance at the rate of 190 yuan per person per month in January 2011. After that, more than one hundred farmers never received Compensation for land acquisition endowment insurance. I hope that more than a hundred ordinary people in Shuguang thought that there was no hope of defending their rights. At this time, they learned that Wang Weizhou and Xia Tao, two lawyers from Beijing Wandian Law Firm, helped 113 old farmers in the county to fight for land security and win a lawsuit. At the endowment insurance of the land-expropriated farmers, these residents suddenly saw the dawn of hope. (You can click the following link to learn more about the relevant case: the eight-year petition has not been heard. Once the verdict is resolved, Wan Dian lawyers helped 113 veterans win the social security lawsuit.) Afterwards, the villagers contacted Wan Dian lawyers with hope. The villagers provided detailed answers and compared the facts and legal provisions one by one. The villagers found the lawyers to be very reasonable. Legal procedures must be considered in order to protect their rights, so they decided to hire Beijing Wandian Law Firm to protect their rights through legal procedures. . After filing a lawsuit and studying the relevant evidence in detail, Beijing Wandian Law Firm believed that this case was the same as the previous case, so it decided to represent it according to law, and appointed two lawyers, Chen Haifeng and Xia Tao, to handle the case together. Later, Lawyer Wan Dian assisted the 101 residents in bringing a lawsuit to the Binzhou Intermediate People's Court in Shandong Province. During the lawsuit, Lawyer Wan Dian put forward the following opinions: 1. According to the law and the agreement ...
    • 【土地律师】广东湛江征地案:建设用地申请超1年未动工,法院判决颁发规划许可证行为违法!
      Updated
      - Nov - 13 2019 - Nov - 13
      [Land Attorney] Guangdong Zhanjiang land requisition case: construction land application has not been started for more than one year, the court ruled that issuing a planning permit is illegal!
      [Land Attorney] Guangdong Zhanjiang land requisition case: construction land application has not been started for more than one year, the court ruled that issuing a planning permit is illegal! Plaintiff: Zhanjiang Nanqiao Sub-district Office, Zhanjiang City, X Economic Cooperative Co. Attorney: Chen Haifeng, Beijing Wandian Law Firm Xiao Yirong, Beijing Wandian Law Firm Lawyer Defendant: Zhanjiang Natural Resources Bureau Third person: Lingnan Normal University Affiliated Middle School Case Introduction On June 9, 2010, Guangdong Province ’s Land and Resources issued the “Reply for the Fourth Batch of Urban Construction Land in Zhanjiang in 2009”, expropriating about 117.8 acres of land legally owned by a village economic cooperative in Zhanjiang. Since then, both parties to the land acquisition have been unable to complete the acquisition due to compensation issues. By 2018, the economic cooperative has decided to entrust a demolition lawyer to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests. After inquiries from various parties, two lawyers, Chen Haifeng and Xiao Yirong of Beijing Wandian Law Firm, were found involved in the case. After understanding the basic case, the two lawyers decided to make the information public first. After applying to the Land and Resources Department of Zhanjiang City, it was found that there is a serious illegality in the construction planning permission for this land use. In this case, the Natural Resources Bureau issued the Construction Land Planning Permit, and should inform the plaintiff and relevant stakeholders that they have the right to request a hearing in accordance with the law. Where an interested party submits an application for a hearing within the legal time limit, the defendant shall organize a hearing in accordance with the law. The Natural Resources Bureau illegally deprived the applicant's right to information and hearing before issuing the certificate, and failed to inform the applicant of the right to make representations and defenses, which is a major administrative act that violates legal procedures. The two lawyers decided to revoke the construction land planning permit through administrative litigation. Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the "Administrative Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China": "The counterpart of administrative acts and other citizens, legal persons or other organizations that have an interest in administrative acts shall have the right to initiate litigation." Then, this economic cooperative Do you have the right to sue? In this case, the land involved in the “Construction Land Planning Permit” issued by the defendant was owned by the plaintiff, and the evidence application form submitted by the defendant, the “Zhanjiang Municipal People's Government on Site Selection and Construction of High School Affiliated to Zhanjiang Normal College” Reply of the Ministry of Education and New Campus "(Zhanfu Han [2007] No. 549), Zhanjiang Education Bureau," Re-Request for the Construction of a New School of Wenbao Village for the Site Selection of the Senior Middle School Affiliated to Zhanjiang Normal College "(Zhan Jiaobao [2007] No. 127) are ...
    • 【拆迁律师】山东济宁拆迁案:以非本村村民为由,撤销土地证,户口影响补偿吗
      Updated
      - Oct - 21 2019 - Oct - 21
      [Demolition Attorney] Shandong Jining Demolition Case: Revocation of Land Permit on the Basis of Non-Village Villagers, Is Compensation for Hukou Impact?
      [Demolition Attorney] Shandong Jining Demolition Case: Can non-owner villagers use the grounds to revoke the land certificate and compensate for the hukou effect? Applicant: Xie XX Xie XX Xie XX Xie XX Attorney: Liu Lei Lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm Xiao Yirong Lawyer's lawyer respondent: Mr. Xie in Renning District People's Government of Jining City, and in October 1999, in response to the government's investment promotion guidance, came to X Village, Jining City, Shandong Province to start an enterprise. In August 2000, Xie XX signed a land use right contract with a village committee of XX Zhuang Village and obtained a land use certificate. However, at the time of collection, Mr. Xie's family refused to sign the agreement because the compensation was not satisfactory. However, this did not solve the problem of compensation, but it was the decision of the land acquisition department to revoke the land certificate. Later, after consulting with many parties, he decided to entrust lawyers Liu Lei and Xiao Yirong to intervene in the case. The decision to revoke the land certificate was revoked. After receiving the decision to revoke the land certificate, the two lawyers decided to review it. It is hoped that such an illegal decision can be revoked. Soon, the reconsideration authority considered that the decision of the expropriator to revoke Mr. Xie's land certificate was illegal. In January 2019, the reconsideration authority reversed the decision. The decision to revoke the land certificate was revoked again on June 10, 2019. The respondent made (Ji Renzheng Zi [2019] No. 13) in order to achieve its illegal purpose. Decision (hereinafter referred to as "No. 13 Revocation Decision"), once again decided to revoke the collective soil use certificate obtained by the applicant according to law. The two lawyers decided to review again. The district government believes that: 1. Mr. Xie's family is not a member of the collective organization of the village and does not have the statutory subject qualification for applying for a collective land use certificate. The facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, the applicable law is correct, and the procedure is legal. 2. The contract for the illegal transfer of collective land use rights signed by Mr. Xie and the Village Committee of XX Village to a member of a non-collective economic organization is a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and the validity of the civil contract shall be deemed invalid. 3. In this case, the application for the revocation of an administrative license that does not meet the qualifications for application is not within the scope of a hearing that should be conducted under the Administrative Licensing Law. A hearing is not a statutory procedure for the administrative act of revoking an administrative license. 4. The applicant is not a member of the village collective economic organization and does not have the subject qualification for applying for collective land use rights. The respondent applied for ...
    • 广西案件:土地征收有争议,农民告赢自治区政府
      Updated
      - Oct - 10 2019 - Oct - 10
      Case in Guangxi: Controversy over land expropriation
      [Land Attorney] Case of forced land requisition in Guangxi: different land parcels, mixed land requisition procedures, the court withdrew the reconsideration decision, and ordered it to be repeated! Plaintiff: Liang XX Liang XX , A land in the village that has the legal right to land contractual management. Since 2015, the government has started land acquisition. Due to dissatisfaction with compensation and other issues, Mr. Liang and others did not sign or receive compensation. In order to protect their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law, after discussion, 6 old farmers decided to find a professional demolition lawyer to take a lawsuit. After much inquiry and comparison of several law firms, Beijing Wandian Law Firm was finally selected, and three lawyers Xia Tao, Lu Lei (intern) and Li Yang (intern) were commissioned to intervene in the land acquisition case. Two land acquisitions, but only one agreement was signed. In October 2018, due to the needs of the construction of the resort, the county government requisitioned the contracted land of Mr. Liang and others. The lawyer found through the notary certificate that the land involved in the case had two acts of land acquisition, one was in the south of the cement road in 2015, and the other was the land involved in the case. The first land acquisition compensation and compensation agreement have been signed and received. The compensation agreement for land acquisition in this case has not been signed, and compensation has not been received. The administrative reconsideration rejected the lawyer's proposal with no interest: 1. The right to information of six persons including Liang XX was not guaranteed according to law before the approval of the case-related approval. The hearing was not held according to law before the land requisition and approval, and the plaintiff was not informed of the right to a hearing. The land-expropriated farmers agree and confirm. 2. The project involved does not conform to the overall land use plan and village planning 3. The project involved does not conform to the annual land supply plan and annual land use plan; 4. The matter of land acquisition has not been discussed and decided by the villagers' meeting, and the acquisition is illegal. 5. The expropriated land is the basic farmland and shall be subject to the approval of the State Council. The Guangxi District Government does not have the authority to approve. 6. The facts were found to be incorrect. Six persons including Liang XX and the town government of XX did not conduct land expropriation with the approval of No. 291 in 2015. In 2018, they used the approval to expropriate the land of Liang XX. situation. The lawyer decided to conduct an administrative review first and revoke the illegal land acquisition approval. As a result, the district government believes that: 6 persons including Mr. Liang have received compensation for land acquisition and no longer have land acquisition ...
    Land tenure case
    • 山东济宁:农民在国务院撤销省政府征地批复
      Updated
      - July - 5 2018 - July - 5
      Jining, Shandong: farmers revoke provincial government's land acquisition approval in the State Council
      The farmer sued the provincial government in the State Council. The land acquisition approval was revoked. Kong x is an ordinary farmer. Kong x's husband, Li xx, jointly runs a honeycomb coal plant with good economic benefits. At the same time, he has 5 acres of arable land in his home. And wisdom, the little life is booming. However, in 2010, the county government's investment promotion broke the quiet life of the young couple. Just as Kong x and Li xx weaved the dream of hard work and getting rich, the Surabaya Land and Resources Bureau informed that their honeycomb coal plant and cultivated land and other land in the village were expropriated by the county. The county government has sold the land to a developer and asked them to retreat as soon as possible. Kong x and Li xx wondered why the land was requisitioned without announcement or approval. Does the government have no right to participate in the requisition? After consulting with lawyers, they felt that the county government's expropriation is likely to be illegal land requisition, so they entrusted our lawyer Wang Weizhou to maintain their legitimate rights and interests. The investigation by Lawyer Wang found that the land involved in the case was reported to the Shandong Provincial Government for approval in 2006 due to the need for investment promotion in 2006. The approval document was "Approval for the First Batch of Urban Construction Land in Surabaya County in 2006" (Lu Zhengtu Zi [2006] No. 1565) approved the expropriation, but during the expropriation process, the procedures for the informed confirmation and hearing of the land-expropriated farmers were not performed, and the land of the honeycomb coal plant was acquired by Li xx from the county. The certificate of state-owned land use right belongs to the state For the land, the county government once again submitted it to collective land for review and approval as repeated land requisition, and the compensation standard is also illegal. However, the cultivated land county government contracted by Kongx was reported as an independent industrial and mining land for approval, and there was an illegal situation of false approval for both land. . After research, Kong x and Li xx respectively applied to the Shandong Provincial Government for administrative reconsideration and asked to revoke the "Reply for the First Batch of Urban Construction Land in Sishui County in 2006" (Lu Zheng Tu Zi [2006] No. 1565). The government acknowledged that the collection and approval was illegal, but hesitated to make an administrative reconsideration decision. Lawyers and farmers immediately complained about the inaction of the provincial government and requested that it be handled in accordance with the law. After that, the Shandong provincial government made an administrative reconsideration decision to use the land of Li xx's honeycomb coal plant. Belonging to state-owned land, the county government treats it as collective land ...
    • 安徽黄山:越权审批基本农田,农民在国务院告赢安徽省政府
      Updated
      - July - 5 2018 - July - 5
      Huangshan Anhui: Farmers Approve Basic Farmland, Farmers Win Anhui Province Government in the State Council
      This website news: Recently, the State Council of the People's Republic of China against Jinxian County, Anhui Province and the People's Government of Anhui Province, dissatisfied with the "Reply for the Fifth Batch of Urban Construction Land in Yi County in 2009" [Wan Zhengdi [2009] No. 931, The following is referred to as Wan Zhengdi [2009] No. 931 Reply] The case was made in the "State Council Administrative Reconsideration Award" (Guo Fu [2014] No. 293), in accordance with Article 14, According to Article 28, the first paragraph and the third paragraph, the State Council's ruling is as follows: It is confirmed that the respondent wrote (Anhui Provincial People's Government) Wan Zhengdi [2009] No. 931 approval for violation of the law. Why did the farmers sued the provincial government, and what caused the provincial government with high power to lose the case? Due to the Anhui Provincial Government's "Reply for the Fifth Batch of Urban Construction Land in Yi County in 2009" [Wan Zheng Di [2009] No. 931], the decision was made to requisition the cultivated land of the village where Jin xx is located. The local government was extremely strong during the requisition process. The legal rights and interests of the land-expropriated farmers were seriously infringed, Jin xx refused to accept this, and entrusted Wang Weizhou, a well-known Beijing land demolition lawyer, to handle it on his behalf. After investigating the case, Wang verified that the land requisitioned involved basic farmland, and the Anhui provincial government has no right to approve the acquisition The land involved in the case should be approved by the State Council; in addition, all rights such as the informed confirmation and hearing of the land-expropriated farmers have been violated, and immediately organized evidence to apply for administrative reconsideration. In the administrative reconsideration at the level of the Anhui provincial government, the Anhui provincial government considers itself The behavior was legal, and the land involved in the case was no longer part of the basic farmland through regulation and maintained its own behavior. Jin xx and his lawyer firmly believed that the land requisitioned by the Anhui Provincial Government was basic farmland, and applied for a final ruling with the State Council. During the ruling, Jin xx pointed out to the State Council that “the collective agricultural land of farmers in Hui County is within 7.8456 hectares” It is "basic farmland" rather than cultivated land in the general sense, and this document classifies the "basic farmland" into the category of non-basic farmland such as ordinary "cultivated land". Article 45 of the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China: "The expropriation of the following land shall be approved by the State Council: (1) basic farmland; ..." According to this article, as long as basic farmland is involved, even a very small part of it shall be approved by the State Council. The "about the fifth batch of town construction in ...
    • 秦皇岛市:村民小组以卵击石,告赢抚宁县政府
      Updated
      - July - 5 2018 - July - 5
      Qinhuangdao City: Villager Group Hits Stone with Egg, Wins Funing County Government
      After five trials and four judgements, the two-year-old dispute over land ownership between Qinhuangdao City's Fucheng County Nancheng Street South Street and the Funing County People's Government has nearly ended. The administrative judgment of the People's Court (Jixing Zhongzi No. 67) was as follows: 1. The administrative judgment of Qinhuangdao Intermediate People's Court (2012) Qin Xingchuzi No. 3 was revoked. 2. It is confirmed that the "Decision on Land Ownership Disputes" made by the Funing County People's Government on October 29, 2010 is illegal. The handling fee of RMB 50 for the first and second instance cases in this case shall be borne by the people's government of Funing County. This decision is final. The peasant won the lawsuit with a smashing stone, which made Qian Jingquan, the leader of the second villager group of South Street, who had a tense nerve for a long time, relieved, and repeatedly shouted "good." I. The county government's illegal determination of power has triggered administrative lawsuits. Due to the occupation of 26.62 acres of collective land of the second villager group of Nanjie Village, Funing County, the Baihui Pharmaceutical Factory of Funing Township-owned Enterprise Qinhuangdao City, during this period, the two parties have been holding disputes. The second villager group of South Street believes that the land involved has always belonged to the second The villagers' group owns, and Baihui Pharmaceutical Factory believes that the land involved in the case has been collectively owned by farmers in Funing Township. Due to the dispute between the two parties, in 2010 the Funing Town People's Government took the respondent's Nanjie Community Neighborhood Committee as the respondent to the people of Funing County. The government applied for land confirmation. On October 29, 2010, the Funing County Government issued the "Decision on Disputes over Land Ownership of the Funing County People's Government", confirming that the land involved was owned by Funing Town. The Second Villagers Group on South Street was strongly dissatisfied with this, and felt incomprehensible. How their own land became someone else's, so they went around to petition, but to no avail. The Second Villagers Group decided to bring a lawsuit to defend their rights, but it was easier to sue the county government. Many people have advised the group elder Qian to "give up, arms can't twist his thighs" "Do you know who is litigating with the law? You want to fight the law with the county government!" But Qian Jingquan, who loves his life seriously, has not wavered. In November 2012, Lao Qian heard that our lawyer Wang Weizhou, who specializes in the protection of vulnerable groups, is handling a case in Tangshan City, Hebei Province. He immediately came to Tangshan with the villagers. After seeing Wang Weizhou, Lao Qian introduced the situation in a comprehensive way. Lawyer Wang A comprehensive analysis was conducted, and an inspection was carried out with the old money. After listening to the lawyer's explanation, the old money decided not to hesitate and resolutely entrusted the lawyer to prosecute. Second, repeated defeats. Talking about the prosecution, the villagers 'group made another worry because the county government believed that the second villagers' group had no subject ...
    • 《山东省高级人民法院行政调解书》——真实案例解读行政调解
      Updated
      - July - 6 2018 - July - 6
      "Shandong Provincial High People's Court Administrative Mediation" —— A Real Case Interpretation of Administrative Mediation
      Case: On September 28, 2016, the Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court appealed to Zou Hua (pseudonym) v. Xx Municipal People's Government for the house expropriation compensation decision of the firm, and organized the parties to mediate. After one morning and one afternoon During the mediation, the two parties reached the following mediation: 1. The appellant xx Municipal People's Government gave the appellant Zou Hua (a pseudonym) a one-time monetary compensation of 1,052,200 yuan, which included the appropriated house and interior decoration, attachments, and attachment 4. Compensation fees for auxiliary facilities, relocation fees, temporary resettlement fees, etc. 2. The appellant Zou Hua (pseudonym) delivered the requisitioned house to the respondent xx Municipal People ’s Government within 15 days after the service of this mediation letter was delivered. The above payment was paid to the appellant in a lump sum within the day. 3. The appellant Zou Hua (pseudonym) gave up the request of the original trial and may not claim other rights or make other requests against the appellee. 4. The costs of accepting cases in the first and second instance shall be borne by the appellant Zou Hua (pseudonym). The aforesaid agreement does not violate the legal provisions, and this court confirms it. Judge length: xxx ...
    Land contract case
    • 【以案说法】失地农民vs全村农民,村民小组vs村委会,补偿款该如何分配?
      Updated
      - Nov - 18 2019 - Nov - 18
      [According to the case] How should the compensation funds be allocated to landless farmers vs whole village farmers, villager groups vs village committees?
      [According to the case] How should the compensation funds be allocated to landless farmers vs whole village farmers, villager groups vs village committees? Guide: Land acquisition in the village, how to allocate compensation for land acquisition? Is it the farmer who allocates the contracted land? Or evenly distributed throughout the village? Is it decided by the village committee? Or is it determined by the villager group? Does the dispute over the allocation of compensation for land acquisition fall within the scope of the people's court? Does the villager group have an independent subject qualification? Do it all in this case. The plaintiff, the fourth villager group of a village in Xihe District, Fuxin City, Liaoning Province, appointed agent Wang Weizhou, lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm, Xia Tao, lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm, and the defendant. The fourth villager group of a village in Xihe District, Fuxin City, Liaoning Province, was originally a fourth production team, and it was subsequently changed to a villager group. In 2015, the Xihe District Government pre-expropriated all the land in each group of the village, but the land acquisition was not handled. In the formal examination and approval procedures, the compensation rate for land acquisition has been fully paid in accordance with 50,000 yuan / mu. In 2016, due to the land used for the construction of the Fuxin North Traction Station on the Beijing-Shenyang Passenger Dedicated Line, the State Council approved the acquisition of 3.7267 hectares of collective land within the fourth villager group of the Plaintiff Village (contract 56 acres). All the farmers involved in the land acquisition are the fourth villagers. The villagers of the group, as announced by the Land and Resources Bureau, after the state approved land acquisition, the land compensation standard increased by 8,000 yuan / mu per mu to 58,000 yuan / mu. Land requisition compensation has increased, and the issue of distribution has caused controversy. Regarding the increased compensation of 8,000 yuan / mu, two opinions appeared in the village. The villagers of the fourth villager group believed that they should belong to the fourth villager group because the land belongs to the fourth villager group and the land is also owned by the villagers of the fourth villager group Contract management; however, several other villager groups believe that uniform distribution should be uniform throughout the village. To this end, the two parties must go to the government for letters and visits. The district government has decided to hold a villager's meeting after a study. So the village committee held a villagers' congress. After the villagers voted, they decided to distribute the newly added compensation (approximately 448,000 yuan) evenly among all the villagers with the qualification for land contract. Entrust a lawyer to file a lawsuit. The fourth villager group is not satisfied with this decision. Why should the compensation that belongs to its own group be evenly distributed throughout the village? There is a more serious problem, that is, the fourth villager group has ...
    • 广西:农民状告县政府,征地补偿拉锯战
      Updated
      - July - 5 2018 - July - 5
      Guangxi: Farmer sues county government, land requisition compensation tug-of-war
      82 people including Sun Guiping and Sun Xianwang are ordinary farmers in Guanyang Township, Guanyang County, Guangxi Autonomous Region. In recent years, they have had a lot of disputes with the county government and the land use unit over the government's land compensation standards. It was finally resolved until the lawsuit was reached by the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council, which attracted the attention of the autonomous region government. After coordinating the Guanyang County Government to agree to the farmers' requirements, the problem was resolved. Why did such a lawsuit arise in a land acquisition compensation dispute? In 2005, the government of Guanyang County decided to rebuild the county's Hongqi Middle School. The contracted land of 82 farmers, including Sun Guiping and Sun Xianwang, Daren Village, Guanyang Town, Guanyang County, was required. However, due to the weak legal awareness at that time, the county Instead of fulfilling the formal approval procedure, Hongqi Middle School was required to negotiate with the farmers to occupy the farmers' land at a price of 20,000 yuan / mu, and verbally agreed that if the land price rose in the future, the farmers would be replenished. The purchase of land did not indicate that it was rented. Such a project was launched hurriedly. For objective reasons, Hongqi Middle School only constructed the school's teaching building at that time, and did not construct the student playground and dormitory. The remaining half of the land was useless. Construction of playgrounds and student dormitories began in Hongqi Middle School in 2013, but during this period the price of land requisition around Daren Village in Guanyang County has increased many times. The surrounding land is generally 75,000 yuan / mu. Farmers believe that Hongqi Middle School has promised Land prices have to be adjusted, but Hongqi Middle School has changed its principal several times. No one was aware of this. The conflict between the two parties escalated. Farmers petitioned the county government many times but the problem was not alleviated. Moreover, under the premise that the dispute cannot be resolved, the land use project unit has begun to organize construction. As a result, the contradictions between farmers and the construction unit have become heated. The construction party has organized a large number of social idlers to prepare for forced construction, and the farmers have not shown weakness to the site to obstruct the work. The police also reported to the public security organs that although the land was not occupied, the two parties gave each other compensation issues. Farmer B believes that the land requisition should be compensated at the same price. The land compensation is too different from the surrounding compensation standards, and the county government He Hongqi Middle School believes that compensation has already been paid before, and no further compensation is needed. Both parties hold each other's word and give up each other. The situation is very urgent. Lawyers stepped in and farmers went to legal proceedings. Seeing that the situation is getting bigger and bigger, the farmers are also worried that it will cause problems if they continue to be troubled, so they decide to entrust lawyers to handle the matter, and after many parties inquire about them ...
    • 村委会违规调地解除承包权,人民法院判决撤销调地决定
      Updated
      - July - 5 2018 - July - 5
      The village committee canceled the right to contract by illegally adjusting the land, and the people's court ruled to cancel the land adjustment decision
      The village committee cancelled the contracting right in violation of the regulations. The people's court ruled to cancel the land adjustment decision. The Hongshan District of Chifeng City had incomplete approval procedures for land expropriation. The villagers refused the government to expropriate the land. The land contract relationship was transferred to the government for land acquisition. To protect the rights and interests of the villagers, the villagers hired lawyers from the firm to protect the rights and interests. Although this case belongs to the scope of civil lawsuits, it is operated by the local government. The quasi-administrative behavior of the government is more difficult to prosecute, and even filing a case is a difficult problem. In response to this problem, Wan Dian lawyers studied and decided that a civil lawsuit should be instituted against the behavior of the villagers' committee. The Hongshan District People's Court of Chifeng City accepted it and finally decided that the village committee's behavior of adjusting the land was illegal and revoked it. Civil Judgment of the Hongshan District People's Court of Chifeng City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (2014) Hongmin Chuzi No. 1626 Plaintiff Wu xx, male, born on xx, xx, 1962, ID number …………… .., Han nationality, farmer, living in Chifeng Hongshan District xx Village x Group xx. Attorney Wang Weizhou, lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm. Attorney Chen Haifeng, lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm. The defendant was the Niehudi Village Committee of Hongmiaozi Town, Hongshan District, Chifeng City, and the residence was in Niehudi Village, Hongmiaozi Town, Hongshan District, Chifeng City. Representative Li Baochen, director. Attorney Xin Wuzhong, lawyer of Inner Mongolia Law Firm. The plaintiff Wu Fengrui v. The defendant, Niehudi Village Committee, Hongmiaozi Town, Hongshan District, Chifeng City. After the court accepted the case, it formed a collegiate panel according to law and opened the trial. Plaintiff Wu Fengrui and his agent Wang Weizhou and defendant Xin Wuzhong, the agent of Niehudi Village Committee of Hongmiaozi Town, Hongshan District (hereinafter referred to as Niehudi Village Committee), attended the court. The trial is now closed. The plaintiff Wu Fengrui claimed that the plaintiff was a villager of Niehudi Village and had legal contractual management rights over the cultivated land. During the contracting operation period, because the Hongshan District Government and the defendant organized the implementation of land acquisition, because the plaintiff believed that the land requisition by the Hongshan District Government was illegal, they did not agree with the land acquisition and requested to continue contracting for the land involved in the case. For this reason, the defendant decided to adjust the contracted land of the plaintiff, and issued a land notice to the plaintiff on April 28, 2013. The plaintiff believed that the decision to adjust the land was seriously illegal, without any facts and legal basis, ...
    • 未批先征,朝阳征地模式被判决违法
      Updated
      - July - 5 2018 - July - 5
      Land acquisition mode not approved, Chaoyang land acquisition model was sentenced to be illegal
      Administrative Judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Chaoyang City, Liaoning Province (2015) Chaoxing Chuzi No. 00010 Plaintiff Zhu xx, male, born on xx, x, 19xx, Han, farmer, living in xx section xx, xx street, Shuangta District, Chaoyang City. Authorized agent Liu Lei, lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm. Attorney Yang Yong, lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm. The defendant Chaoyang People's Government, No. 8, Section 2, Zhongshan Street, Chaoyang City. Legal representative Hu Jianhua, acting mayor. Authorized agent Cai Zhigang, deputy director and director of the Legal Affairs Office of the People's Government of Longcheng District, Chaoyang City. Entrusted agent Zhang Shilei, clerk of Longquan Sub-district Office, Longcheng District, Chaoyang City. The plaintiff, Zhu Deyong, sued the defendant's administrative behavior of the Longcheng District People's Government in Chaoyang City, and filed an administrative lawsuit in this court on March 2, 2015. After receiving it on March 2, 2015, the court served a copy of the statement of complaint and the notice of response to the defendant on March 9, 2015. The court formed a collegiate bench in accordance with the law, and opened the court hearing on April 1, 2015. Liu Lei and Yang Yong, the agents of the plaintiff Zhu xx, and Cai Zhigang and Zhang Shilei, the agents of the defendant's legal representative Hu Jianhua, attended the court. The trial is now closed. On June 6, 2014, the defendant's Longcheng District People's Government of Chaoyang implemented the collection of the plaintiff Zhu xx collective land use right. On March 18, 2015, the defendant provided this court with the evidence and basis for the specific administrative actions of the defendant: 1. The National Development and Reform Commission's approval for the approval of the new construction project of “Large and Smaller” in Liaoning Guodian Chaoyang Thermal Power Plant The Ministry's approval of the land use for new construction of Guodian Chaoyang Thermal Power's “upper and lower pressure” new construction project is used to prove that the approving authority agrees with farmers' collectively owned agricultural land to be transferred to the second construction site and completes land acquisition procedures; 2. The Longcheng District People's Government's land acquisition plan announcement, Announcement of the land acquisition compensation and resettlement plan of the Development and Division Bureau of Chaoyang Land and Resources Bureau, which is used to record the land acquisition in accordance with legal procedures; 3. The transcript of the relocation talks, which is used to prove the relocation negotiations of the demolished people; 4. Dongsan, the first phase of cogeneration Statistics on the demolition of homes and villages, used to prove the demolition on the requisitioned land; 5. Zhu xx ground attachments compensation compensation valuation report and valuation settlement report, ground attachments and young crops survey registration form, used to prove that the land acquisition department attached to the land The possessions and young crops were registered; 6, the administrative affairs of Liaoning Province let the unit's funds come and go ...
    Video Video
    [MORE]



    see more
    Wan Dian Wan Dian Lecture Hall
    [MORE]
    Video show
    Wan Dian Pufa
    Rights protection guide
    Academic Research
    Counsel Team Counsel Team [MORE]
    Notice Notice of hearing [MORE]
    Announcement
    Links Friendly Links [more]
    •  中国政府网
    • 最高人民法院
    • 最高人民检察院
    • 中国征地拆迁法律事务网
    share to:

    010-5318-6190

    400-150-9288

    QQ Contact

    917148638

    748905591


    Email Contact

    15810784790@163.com

    Dear, scan the WeChat cloud
    X
    2

    MSN settings

    3

    SKYPE settings

    4

    Ali Wangwang Settings

      2

      MSN settings

      Waiting for dynamic data to load ...

      Waiting for dynamic data to load ...

        4

        Ali Wangwang Settings

          Waiting for dynamic data to load ...

          Waiting for dynamic data to load ...

            Toll free
            3

            SKYPE settings

            4

            Ali Wangwang Settings

              2

              MSN settings

              6

              QR code management

              5

              Lawyer Hotline

              • 400-150-9288
              • 010-5318-6190
              Waiting for dynamic data to load ...

              Waiting for dynamic data to load ...

                Expand
                Go to mobile site
                加拿大28微信靠谱老群靠谱大群 拼多多黑车技术 极速赛车微信群信誉老群 最实力的加拿大28微信群 极速赛车微信群9.9 没有限制玩法飞艇群 幸运飞艇公众号下注平台 澳洲幸运10微信靠谱老群靠谱大群 北京赛车精准人工计划软件 北京赛车微信信誉群9.8