Record of the village committee suing the town government for land contract dispute agency

——Lawyer Zhou Xiangen

The former mudflat is a treasure today

Xialantang tidal flat in Xiaoxiong Town, Sanmen County has been reclaimed with government investment since 1972. Due to the invasion of tide and typhoon, the reclaimed mudflat collapsed normally; During the reclamation process, the local people invested a large amount of labor, and the government compensated for this in the form of scoring. In November 1983, the former Sanmen Xiaoxiong District Office divided the reclaimed mudflat into Wudu Township and Shanchang Township for management in order to strengthen the management of the reclaimed mudflat. In the second half of 1983, Shanchang Township contracted Xialantang reclamation of mudflat to Guo and other villagers in Ninghai County, with the contract period ending in August 1986; Since August 1986, Shanchang Township has handed over Xialantang mudflat to villages for contract use until November 1997. Since then, some villages have contracted others to plant watermelon and other crops on the mudflat, with a contract fee of about 170 yuan per mu. Since the reclamation of Xialantang mudflat, cotton, watermelon and other crops have been planted; In November 1999, the People's Government of Xiaoxiong Town formulated a plan for the development and transformation of Xialantang Tu Land to adjust the agricultural industrial structure. It was pointed out that due to the limitations of the economic and natural conditions around Xialantang, the ability to store light and resist drought was poor, the drainage and flood prevention facilities were incomplete, there was no tidal water diversion system, and the planting level of the group was low; Suggest changing to aquaculture to overcome the three major deficiencies of drought resistance, flood control, and tidal range. At the same time, since 1999, the People's Government of Sanmen County has continuously formulated and issued policy documents related to the management of mudflat replanting and breeding projects. Taizhou Jinchao Fishery Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinchao Company) has reached a development intention with the People's Government of Xiaoxiong Town, Sanmen County in order to develop Xialantang mudflat. In this case, the People's Government of Xiaoxiong Town, Sanmen County held a signing ceremony with 13 administrative villages related to Xialantang mudflat on September 19, 2000, and handed over the land originally contracted by each village to the town government for unified contract awarding, with the price of 250 yuan per mu and the term of 25 years. On November 10th of the same year, the town government awarded approximately 2660 acres of land in each village to Jinchao Company at the same price and deadline. After Jinchao Company signed a contract with the repressive government, in order to speed up the benefits of mudflat replanting, it transformed mudflat, such as building gates and roads. Due to the continuous improvement of the infrastructure where the mudflat is located, the original mudflat contract fee is less than 170 yuan per mu per year. With the entry of other farmers, the contract fee keeps rising every year; The mudflat that were not visited in the past are increasing in value.

The village chief made a heavy promise

In Mei'ao Village, Xiaoxiong Town, under the jurisdiction of Lantang, 296 acres of land were accepted by the town government through contracting during the land conversion and maintenance process. At that time, the village committee secretary and the director of the village committee signed on behalf of the village committee. With the re election of the village committee and the election of the county people's representative, Qu, in order to run for the director of the village committee and the representative of the county people's congress, it is understood that he promised the villagers to overturn the land contract signed between the village committee and the town government in Xialantang, and to re contract or increase the land contract price. The people believed that whether re contract or increase the price was beneficial to the villagers, so he was naturally elected during the election process of the village committee director; Due to Qu's campaign slogan being equally infectious to other villagers, he was elected as a county people's congress representative with a high number of votes in the Xiaoxiong Town constituency during the county people's congress representative election process. In order to fulfill his campaign promise, Qu repeatedly requested the town government in writing or orally to readjust or correct the land that had been handed over to Jinchao Company for operation, citing that the people of various villages in Lantang had no knowledge of the land contract and had deprived the majority of the villagers of their contracting, deliberation, and decision-making rights. However, the consent of the town government was not obtained.

Failure to coordinate and file a lawsuit in court

Due to the request for adjustment of land contract prices or correction of land contract contracts from 13 administrative villages in Lantang, represented by Qu, the town government has not resolved the issue, which has affected Qu's reputation in the local area; In order to restore his own reputation, Qu's idea was to resolve it through litigation procedures. To this end, he convened a group of village committee members to discuss litigation matters. At the meeting of the two committee members, the village committee secretary who signed the agreement clearly proposed that if the price is low and the deadline is long, coordination can be carried out through government departments. If it is overturned, theoretically it cannot be done; The land contract price, based on the development situation of Sanmen aquaculture at that time, did not form a scale, and its price is also reasonable; Now that the land development in Lantang has been successful, the land price will naturally increase. If it is not successful, the land price will not increase. After listening to the Secretary's opinion, Qu thought: What should we talk to the government about? Due to differences in opinion between the two, a consensus on the prosecution was not reached between the village committees. In this situation, Qu had to work with others to advance the litigation fees and file a lawsuit in the name of the village committee against the town government to confirm the invalidity of the land contract and return the land management rights to the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court. The main facts and reasons for the lawsuit are as follows:

1. Inaccurate land area;

2. The low price of land contracting has greatly harmed the interests of villagers;

3. The land contract is invalid if it is not discussed and approved by the village representative or two-thirds of the villagers, which violates the provisions of the Organization Law of the Village Committee;

4. As a legal entity, the town government does not have the qualification to engage in commercial activities.

In response to the lawsuit filed by the village committee, the leading lawyers Zhou Xiangen and He Meiling defended on behalf of the town government, stating that:

1. The land area is determined according to the original contract signed by the village committee with others, and there are no errors;

2. The land contract price has exceeded the price set by the original village committee and others, and the price is reasonable;

3. The contract signed between the town government and the village committee is legal and valid, as the land ownership stated in the contract belongs to the government and the village collective economic organization does not have ownership of the land. Therefore, this case confirms whether the contract is invalid and does not apply the relevant provisions of the Village Committee Organization Law. The content of the contract does not violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations and is voluntary by both parties, so the land contract is legal and valid;

4. The government did not engage in commercial activities in this case, but made structural adjustments in accordance with the development requirements of the agricultural industry. Therefore, it requested the court to dismiss the lawsuit of the village committee.

Controversy focus: whether the land contracting right is attached to the land ownership

The prosecution of the village committee is based on the ownership of the land rights stated in the contract; Lawyer Zhou Xiangen believes that according to the relevant provisions of Article 2 and Article 5 of the Organization Law of the Villagers' Committee, the villagers' committee handles public affairs and public welfare undertakings in the village, and manages collective land and other property belonging to the villagers in accordance with the law; Article 19 of the Organization Law of the Villagers' Committee stipulates that matters that need to be discussed and approved by the villagers' meeting must be collectively owned property of the villagers or public affairs or public welfare undertakings that involve the interests of the village; Article 2 of the "Rural Land Contract Law" issued after this explicitly stipulates that rural land refers to farmland, forest land, grassland, and other land legally used for agriculture owned by farmers collectively or owned by the state and used by farmers collectively in accordance with the law. Therefore, whether the village committee's lawsuit is reasonable and whether the village committee has the right to contract out the disputed land in this case depends on whether the village committee has the ownership or legal right to use the land; Regarding this, Lawyer Zhou Xiangen has expressed the following proxy opinion:

1. The disputed land in this case was reclaimed from the tidal flats, and during the reclamation process, it was invested by the government. When the villagers contributed, the government compensated them in the form of points. This was confirmed by the 1984 and 1985 distribution tables related to the pond fees provided by the government to the court; According to Article 22 of the Regulations of mudflat Reclamation Management of Zhejiang Province, the land shall be owned by the government according to law.

2. The village committee and the town government believed that the land in dispute in this case was originally a mudflat until now, and according to Article 9 of the Constitution, it was owned by the state according to law.

3. The fact of land management shows that since the government reclaimed the mudflat in 1972, it has been managed by the government. For example, the original Xiaoxiong District Office participated in the Wudu Township and Shanchang Township Xialantang Land Development and Utilization Agreement in November 1983, and Shanchang Township contracted the land to others in 1983.

4. The report submitted by the village committee to the court on "Urgent Request for the Return of the Blood and Sweat Pond Built for Decades" and the fact that its lawsuit requests the return of land management rights can prove that the land was contracted by the original Shanchang Township Government to various villages for operation, indicating that the village committee does not have ownership of the disputed land in this case.

5. The village committee has not yet provided evidence to prove that the land has obtained ownership or legal use rights; There is no evidence to prove that the mudflat is invested by it.

However, the village attorney believed that the whole Sanmen County did not issue the right certificate for the land use right or ownership certificate of the mudflat, but the villagers have been engaged in the construction, reclamation and management of the land. This fact shows that the village has the right to the disputed land in this case. Therefore, they have the right to contract out the disputed land in this case.

Silent outcome: The village committee's lawsuit was dismissed

After hearing, Taizhou Intermediate People's Court held that the village committee, as the employer of the disputed mudflat, should enjoy the legal ownership or use right of the land before it could put forward a civil claim to confirm the invalidity of the land contract and request the return of the land use right. The ownership of the land disputed in this case is unknown. So far, the village committee has not submitted legal and effective evidence to prove that it has the legal ownership or use right of the reclaimed mudflat. The town government has raised an objection to the land ownership issue. Before the land ownership dispute is resolved according to law, the people's court cannot hear the land contract issue according to the civil procedure. The village should only file a civil lawsuit on the premise that the land ownership is clear. Therefore, this case does not yet fall under the jurisdiction of the people's court for accepting civil cases. Therefore, it has been ruled to dismiss the lawsuit of the village committee. The village committee appealed to the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court against the appeal, and the second instance court also rejected the village committee's appeal request after procedural trial.

Afterword of the case: the government wants to carry out the work of determining rights and issuing certificates to mudflat

After the ruling of the first and second instance of the case rejected the prosecution of the village committee, the local government conducted an investigation on the ownership of the mudflat. According to the investigation, the government wanted to carry out the work of determining the rights and issuing certificates for the mudflat at an appropriate time, which may be a great joy for the villagers. However, as far as the current situation in Taizhou is concerned, many places have not carried out the work of determining the right to issue certificates in time after the reclamation of mudflat, which may be due to the lagging legislative work or the lack of administrative work. I hope that the relevant departments will pay attention to it to protect the legitimate interests of villagers and farmers.