catalogue

1. Yang Ruifen v. Zhuzhou Municipal People's Government's Decision on Housing Expropriation

2. He Gang v. The People's Government of Huaiyin District, Huai'an City, Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

3. Kong Qingfeng v. Sishui County People's Government's Decision on Housing Expropriation

4. Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang v. Decision of the People's Government of Yushan District, Ma'anshan City on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

5. Wenbai'an v. Shangcheng County People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

6. Huo Peiying v. Shanghai Huangpu District People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

7. Mao Peirong v. Yongchang County People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

8. Liao Mingyao v. Longnan County People's Government for Compulsory House Demolition

9. Ye Chengsheng, Ye Chengchang, and Ye Cheng filed a lawsuit against the Renhua County People's Government for housing administrative coercion

10. Ye Hanxiang v. Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau and Shifeng District People's Government of Zhuzhou City in Hunan Province for Not Fulfilling the Legal Duty of Demolition of Illegal Buildings

1、 Yang Ruifen v. Zhuzhou Municipal People's Government's Decision on Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 16, 2007, the Zhuzhou Real Estate Management Bureau issued the Zhufang Demolition and Demolition Permit [2007] No. 19 to Hunan Metallurgical Vocational and Technical College, stating that some of Yang Ruifen's houses were within the scope of demolition and could not be demolished during the demolition permit period. In 2010, the People's Government of Zhuzhou City launched the construction project of Shennong Avenue. On July 25, 2010, the Development and Reform Commission of Zhuzhou City approved the project. On July 14, 2011, the Planning Bureau of Zhuzhou City issued the "Construction Land Planning Permit" (ZGY [2011] No. 0066). Yang Ruifen's house is located at the intersection of Mount Taishan Road and the planned Shennong Avenue, covering an area of 418 ㎡, with a building area of 582.12 ㎡. The floor of the house is more than 10 meters above the floor of Shennong Avenue, and some houses are within the red line of the land for the construction project of Shennong Avenue. On July 15, 2011, the People's Government of Zhuzhou City, after discussion, released the "Compensation Plan for Housing Expropriation on State owned Land for the Construction of Shennong Avenue Project" to solicit public opinions. On September 15, 2011, the stability risk assessment of the Economic and Social Council was classified as Level C. On September 30, 2011, the People's Government of Zhuzhou City issued a revised compensation plan and issued [2011] No. 1 "Zhuzhou City People's Government's Decision on the Expropriation of Houses on State owned Land" (hereinafter referred to as the "Expropriation Decision"), which expropriated the entire house of Yang Ruifen and provided reasonable compensation.

Yang Ruifen is dissatisfied and applies for administrative reconsideration to the Hunan Provincial People's Government on the grounds that "the applicant's house is within the scope of the construction and demolition permit for the new campus project of Hunan Metallurgical Vocational and Technical College, and the respondent has made a decision to expropriate the applicant's house, which conflicts with the original effective house demolition permit" and "both the original project demolition party and the respondent have failed to provide a reasonable resettlement compensation plan to the applicant". The reconsideration authority believes that the "Housing Demolition Permit" obtained by the former demolition worker Hunan Metallurgical Vocational and Technical College has expired, and the respondent's expropriation of the applicant's house in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on Housing Expropriation and Compensation on State owned Land" does not violate legal provisions. Some of the applicant's houses are within the red line of the Shennong Avenue project land, and the ground level of the houses is more than 10 meters higher than the ground level of Shennong Avenue. If the houses are not demolished as a whole, there will be serious safety hazards, which is a situation that truly needs to be demolished. The content of the "Expropriation Decision" is appropriate, and relevant legal procedures have been followed before it is made. Therefore, the reconsideration authority has made a reconsideration decision to maintain the "Expropriation Decision". Yang Ruifen subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Government of Zhuzhou City as the defendant, requesting the revocation of the "Acquisition Decision".

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tianyuan District, Zhuzhou City, in the first instance, held that regarding Yang Ruifen's claim that the main body and content of the [2011] No. 1 "Zhuzhou City People's Government's Decision on the Expropriation of Houses on State owned Land" and the [2007] No. 19 "Housing Demolition Permit" made by the Zhuzhou Real Estate Management Bureau conflict, as the [2007] No. 19 "Housing Demolition Permit" has become invalid, Shennong Avenue is a newly launched project, There is no conflict between the two documents. Regarding Yang Ruifen's claim that the expropriation of houses outside the red line is illegal, as some of his houses are within the red line of the Shennong Avenue project land, the expropriation is for public interest purposes, and the ground level of the houses is more than 10 meters above the ground level of Shennong Avenue. Failure to demolish them as a whole will create serious safety hazards, and the overall expropriation and demolition is in line with reality. Yang Ruifen believes that the construction project of Shennong Avenue has not obtained approval for construction land. On July 14, 2011, the Planning Bureau of Zhuzhou City issued the Construction Land Planning Permit (ZGY [2011] No. 0066) for the Shennong Avenue construction project. Yang Ruifen believes that the explanation issued by the Zhuzhou Planning Bureau in the review process cannot be used as a basis for exceeding the scope of expropriation. The statement issued by the Zhuzhou Planning Bureau in the review process is another legal relationship and is not within the scope of this case. The [2011] No. 1 Decision of the People's Government of Zhuzhou on the Expropriation of Houses on State owned Land made by the People's Government of Zhuzhou City has clear facts, legal procedures, correct application of laws and regulations, and the judgment is upheld.

The second instance of the Zhuzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the focus of controversy in this case is whether the Zhuzhou Municipal People's Government's [2011] No. 1 "Zhuzhou Municipal People's Government's Decision on the Expropriation of Houses on State owned Land" is legal. In 2010, the People's Government of Zhuzhou City launched the construction project of Shennong Avenue. On July 14, 2011, the Planning Bureau of Zhuzhou City issued the "Construction Land Planning Permit" (ZGY [2011] No. 0066). Some of Yang Ruifen's houses are within the red line of the construction project on Shennong Avenue. Although the expropriation of Yang Ruifen's entire house exceeds the special planning of Shenlong Avenue, the expropriation of his house is a public interest requirement, and the ground level of the house is more than 10 meters above the ground level of Shennong Avenue. If only some of the houses within the planned red line are demolished, the remaining houses outside the planned red line will be artificially turned into dangerous houses, The loss of the value and function of the house and the overall expropriation of Yang Ruifen's house with reasonable compensation are in line with the actual situation, which is also a manifestation of the people's government's responsibility for the safety of people's lives and property. The judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that in the process of housing expropriation, if a part of the entire building is not included in the planning red line due to unreasonable planning, the government will expropriate the part that is not included in the planning due to factors such as practicality and residential safety. This behavior reflects the people-oriented approach and is conducive to the smooth progress of the expropriation work. The people's court recognizes the legality of relevant expropriation decisions and does not approve of overly one-sided and mechanical understanding of the law.

2、 Kong Qingfeng v. Sishui County People's Government's Decision on Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 6, 2011, the People's Government of Sishui County issued the "Decision of the People's Government of Sishui County on the Implementation of Housing Expropriation in the East Forestry Bureau Area of Sihe Road and the North Area of West Gucheng Road of Sihe Road" (hereinafter referred to as the "Decision"). The expropriation compensation plan stipulates that if monetary compensation is chosen, the expropriated main house shall be compensated at the preferential price of the multi-level property rights of the land for resettlement housing; For those who choose to exchange property rights, the portion of the resettlement house that exceeds the compensation area of the main house shall be funded by the expropriatee. For those exceeding 10 square meters, the housing price shall be settled at a discounted price, while for those exceeding 10 square meters, the housing price shall be settled at the market price; For the part where the area of the expropriated main house is greater than the area of the resettlement house, monetary compensation will be given based on an increase of 300 yuan/m2 in the preferential price of the resettlement house. The plaintiff Kong Qingfeng's house is within the scope of expropriation, and he is not satisfied with the "Decision" and has filed an administrative lawsuit.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City believes that according to Article 2 and Article 19 of the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State owned Land" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), when expropriating houses owned by units or individuals on State owned land, fair compensation should be given to the owners of the expropriated houses. The compensation for the value of the expropriated property shall not be lower than the market price of similar real estate of the expropriated property on the date of the announcement of the housing expropriation decision. According to the legislative spirit, compensation for expropriated houses should refer to the price of newly built commercial houses in the nearby location, and it is advisable for the expropriated person to maintain their living conditions and quality of life after the house is expropriated. In this case, the preferential price is clearly lower than the market price, and the compensation price for the expropriated property is also significantly lower than the purchase price of the expropriated person's investment. The provisions of this expropriation compensation plan are obviously unfair to the expropriated and violate the relevant provisions of the Regulations. Therefore, the judgment is to revoke the "Decision" made by the defendant Sishui County People's Government. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the principle of fair compensation for the expropriated person stipulated in Article 2 of the "Regulations on Compensation for the Expropriation of Buildings on State owned Land" should run through the entire process of housing expropriation and compensation. Whether it is litigation related to expropriation decisions or compensation decisions, the people's court should adhere to a combination of procedural review and substantive review. Once it is found that the compensation standard determined by the compensation plan is significantly lower than the statutory "market price similar to real estate", even for expropriation decisions with a large impact and involving a large number of people, those that need to be confirmed as illegal must be firmly confirmed, and those that need to be revoked must be firmly revoked, To effectively safeguard the fundamental rights and interests of the people.

3、 He Gang v. Decision of the People's Government of Huaiyin District, Huai'an City on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 29, 2011, the Huaiyin District People's Government of Huai'an City (hereinafter referred to as the Huaiyin District Government) issued a "Notice on the Decision of Housing Expropriation", deciding to expropriate the houses and attachments within the planned red line of the Yinchuan Road East Old City Renovation Project. On the same day, the Huaiyin District Government issued the "Compensation Plan for the Acquisition of Buildings on the East Plot of Yinchuan Road", stating that He Gang's house located at Building 205, No. 3, North of Huanghe Road, Huaiyin District, Huai'an City is within the scope of the aforementioned expropriation. After evaluation, the assessed unit price for the residential part of He Gang's expropriated property is 3901 yuan/square meter, and the assessed unit price for commercial use is 15600 yuan/square meter. During the negotiation process of compensation for expropriation, He Gang expressed to the expropriation department that he chose to exchange property rights, but the two parties failed to reach an agreement on the location and area of the exchange. On June 14, 2012, the Huaiyin District Government issued the Huaizheng Fangzheng Supplementary Decision No. [2012] 01 "Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation" based on the application of the expropriation department. The main content is: He Gang's expropriated house has a construction area of 59.04 square meters and is designed for commercial and residential purposes. Due to the failure of both parties to reach a compensation agreement within the agreed period of the expropriation compensation plan, the Huaiyin District Government made a decision on expropriation compensation: 1. The total monetary compensation for the expropriated party is 607027.15 yuan; 2. The expropriated person He Gang shall complete the relocation within 7 days from the date of receiving this decision. He Gang was not satisfied and applied for administrative reconsideration to the People's Government of Huai'an City. Later, the Huai'an City People's Government upheld the decision on compensation for expropriation in this case. He Gang remained dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit with the court, demanding the revocation of the expropriation compensation decision made by the Huaiyin District Government.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huaiyin District, Huai'an City believes that the focus of controversy in this case is whether the compensation decision for the expropriation of the sued house infringes on He Gang's right to choose the compensation method. According to Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Buildings on State owned Land" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), the expropriated party may choose monetary compensation or property rights exchange. Through the analysis of the evidence in this case, it can be determined that the compensation method chosen by He Gang is property exchange, but the compensation decision against him is determined to be monetary compensation, which infringes on He Gang's right to choose compensation. Based on this, the court made a judgment revoking the defendant's compensation decision. After the first instance judgment, neither party filed an appeal.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that in the litigation of housing compensation decision, it clearly upholds the right of the expropriated person to choose the compensation method. Article 21 of the "Regulations on Compensation for the Expropriation of Buildings on State owned Land" clearly stipulates that "the expropriated person can choose monetary compensation or exchange of property rights". However, in practice, many conflicts between the government and the people arise because the city and county governments do not give the expropriated person the opportunity to choose compensation methods when making compensation decisions and directly determine them. The revocation of the judgment in this case fundamentally corrected the typical illegal situation of administrative agencies and provided sufficient judicial relief for the parties involved.

4、 Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang v. Decision of the People's Government of Yushan District, Ma'anshan City on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 20, 2012, the Yushan District People's Government issued Yuchengzheng [2012] No. 2 "Yushan District People's Government Acquisition Decision" and "Notice on Housing Acquisition for the Old City Renovation Project of Caishi Ancient Town". The house at No. 22 Caishi Jiuhua Street, Yushan District, Ma'anshan City, under the names of Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang, is located within the scope of expropriation, and its property certificate shows a building area of 774.59 square meters; Property type: private property; Designed for commercial use. The land certificate records a land use right area of 1185.9 square meters; Land type (purpose): comprehensive; Type of Use Right: Transfer. In December 2012, the housing expropriation department in Yushan District, under the full witness and supervision of judicial staff, drew lots to determine that Anhui Minsheng Real Estate Evaluation Co., Ltd. was the real estate price evaluation agency for the house at No. 22 Jiuhua Street, Caishi, Yushan District. On December 12, 2012, Anhui Minsheng Real Estate Appraisal Co., Ltd. submitted a market value appraisal report on the properties under the names of Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang to the housing expropriation department in Yushan District. On January 16, 2013, the People's Government of Yushan District issued the Yuzheng Zhengbu [2013] No. 21 "Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation" to the expropriated individuals Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang. Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang believe that the defendant did not deliver the housing evaluation results to the plaintiff before making the compensation decision, depriving the plaintiff of the rights enjoyed by law. Therefore, they file an administrative lawsuit and request the revocation of the "Housing Acquisition Compensation Decision" in accordance with the law.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Ma'anshan City believes that according to Article 19 of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State owned Land, the value of the expropriated houses shall be determined by the real estate price evaluation agency in accordance with the evaluation methods for house expropriation. If there are objections to the value of the expropriated property determined through evaluation, they can apply to the real estate price evaluation agency for review and evaluation. If there are objections to the review results, they can apply for appraisal to the Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee. According to the provisions of Article 16, Article 17, Article 20, and Article 22 of the "Measures for the Evaluation of House Expropriation on State owned Land" issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development, the housing expropriation department shall disclose the preliminary evaluation results of the individual houses within the scope of expropriation to the expropriated persons. After the expiration of the public notice period, the housing expropriation department shall transfer the household assessment report to the expropriated person. If the expropriated party has objections to the evaluation results, they shall apply to the real estate evaluation agency for review and evaluation within 10 days of receiving the evaluation report. If there are objections to the review results, within 10 days of receiving the review results, apply for appraisal to the Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee. From the existing evidence in this case, it can be seen that the housing expropriation department in Yushan District failed to timely deliver the content of the commercial real estate market value evaluation report made by Anhui Minsheng Real Estate Evaluation Co., Ltd. on No. 22 Caishi Jiuhua Street to Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang for public announcement, resulting in the loss of the right of Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang to apply for review and evaluation of their property evaluation price and appraisal by the Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee, It is a violation of legal procedures. Based on this, the judgment revokes the Yuzheng Zhengbu [2013] No. 21 "Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation" made by the People's Government of Yushan District. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that through strict procedural review, it highlights the comprehensive protection of the judiciary for the right of the expropriated person to fair compensation in evaluating the details of whether the report has been delivered. The housing value evaluation report is one of the most important basis for administrative agencies to make compensation decisions. If the evaluation report is not delivered in a timely manner, it will result in the inability of the expropriated person to exercise their legal rights to apply for re evaluation and appraisal, thereby losing the legitimacy of the compensation decision itself. The judgment in this case keenly grasped the important correlation between procedural issues and the protection of substantive rights and interests, and decisively revoked the compensation decision, ensuring that the protection was fully in place.

5、 Wenbai'an v. Shangcheng County People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

Most of the houses in the Yingchun Terrace area of Shangcheng County were built 30 years ago, with severe damage and outdated infrastructure. On December 8, 2012, the housing expropriation department of Shangcheng County issued a notice on the selection of housing expropriation and evaluation institutions in the Yingchuntai shantytown, providing Xinyang Mingyu Real Estate Appraiser Co., Ltd., Anhui Zhong'an Real Estate Appraisal Consulting Co., Ltd., and Shangcheng County Longsheng Real Estate Appraisal Office as qualified evaluation institutions to be selected by the expropriated party. Later, due to the inability of the expropriator and the expropriated to reach a consensus, the Shangcheng County Housing Collection Department issued a "Notice on the Lotting of Housing Collection and Evaluation Institutions in Yingchuntai Shantytown" on December 11, and organized a lottery for the expropriated and public representatives on December 14 to determine Xinyang Mingyu Real Estate Appraiser Co., Ltd. as the price evaluation institution for the housing collection. On December 24, 2012, the People's Government of Shangcheng County made a decision on the expropriation of houses for the renovation and construction of the Yingchuntai Resettlement Area (Shang Zheng [2012] No. 24). The plaintiff Wen Bai'an's long-term residence at No. 132 Yingchuntai is within the scope of expropriation. On May 10, 2013, the real estate price evaluation agency issued a preliminary housing evaluation report. The housing expropriation department of Shangcheng County and the plaintiff failed to reach a compensation agreement within the contract period determined in the expropriation compensation plan. On July 15, 2013, the defendant made the "Shangcheng County People's Government Housing Expropriation Compensation Decision Letter [2013] No. 3" based on the housing evaluation report. The plaintiff is not satisfied with the expropriation compensation decision and has filed a lawsuit with the people's court.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Xinyang City believes that there are the following issues with the legality of the sued expropriation compensation decision in this case: (1) The selection process of the evaluation institution is illegal. The housing expropriation department of Shangcheng County issued the "Announcement on the Selection of Housing Expropriation and Evaluation Institutions for Yingchuntai Shantytown on December 8, 2012". However, the People's Government of Shangcheng County did not make the "Decision on Housing Expropriation for the Reconstruction and Construction of Yingchuntai Resettlement Area" until December 24, 2012, which first issued the announcement on the selection of housing expropriation and evaluation institutions, and then made the housing expropriation decision. This does not comply with the provisions of Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Buildings on State owned Land, which states that "the real estate price evaluation institution shall be selected through consultation by the expropriated party; if consultation fails, it shall be determined through majority decision, random selection, and other methods, and the specific measures shall be formulated by the province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government", as well as Article 6 of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Buildings on State owned Land in Henan Province, which violates legal procedures. （2） The determination of the property ownership of the plaintiff Wen Baian was incorrect. The defendant stated in the "Explanation on the Inconsistency of Property Ownership Subjects in Wenbaian's Housing" that "Wenbaian refused to cooperate during the evaluation process, resulting in the evaluators not being able to enter the housing survey." However, in the "Investigation and Determination Report on the Real Estate Ownership of the Yingchuntai Resettlement Area," it was stated that "this area is the measured area of the county's expropriation office, and the real estate ownership is undisputed. The evidence provided by the defendant is contradictory and lacks sufficient evidence to prove that it was due to the plaintiff's reasons that the defendant was unable to perform the investigation procedure. Moreover, both the property ownership certificate and the state-owned land use certificate registered by the defendant are third parties, but not Wen Bai'an. The defendant's determination of the ownership of the property on the expropriated land was indeed incorrect. Based on this, the first instance court ruled to revoke the compensation decision for the expropriation of the sued house. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in clearly pointing out the hard wounds in compensation decisions from the perspectives of procedural legality and substantive legality. In terms of procedural legality, according to relevant regulations, it is emphasized that the basic procedural requirements for formally determining the evaluation agency can only be made after the expropriation decision is made; In terms of substantive legality, it is emphasized that the expropriated person identified in the compensation decision must be qualified. In this case, due to the issue that the assessment agency was already determined before the expropriation decision was made, and the compensation decision was not approved by the legitimate ownership registrant, the decision to revoke the compensation decision highlights the dual significance of procedural fairness and substantive fairness.

6、 Huo Peiying v. Shanghai Huangpu District People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

The second floor apartment of 283 #, No. 281-283 Shunchang Road, Shanghai, is a publicly owned house leased by the plaintiff Huo Peiying. The house is an old house with a residential area of 11.9 square meters, equivalent to a building area of 18.33 square meters. The household has 4 registered residents, namely Huo Peiying, Sun Weixuan, Chen Weili, and Sun Weiqiang. Due to the need for the renovation of the old urban area, on June 2, 2012, the defendant, the People's Government of Huangpu District, Shanghai, made a housing expropriation decision numbered Huangfuzheng [2012] 2, stating that the plaintiff's household's residential property was within the scope of expropriation. Due to the plaintiff's belief that their household operates a company and the defendant should provide compensation for non residential housing, the expropriation parties were unable to reach a expropriation compensation agreement within the signing period. On April 11, 2013, the housing expropriation department, the third party, the Housing Security and Housing Management Bureau of Huangpu District, Shanghai, reported to the defendant for a decision on compensation for expropriation. After the defendant accepted the case, a trial coordination meeting was held on April 16, 2013, but coordination was unsuccessful due to the plaintiff leaving the meeting on their own. After reviewing and verifying relevant evidence materials, the defendant made a decision on compensation for the expropriation of the house (Hu Huang Fu Fang Zheng Bu [2013] No. 010) on April 23, 2013, which determined that the plaintiff's house was expropriated as a residential property. The decision was made as follows: 1. The housing expropriation department compensated the lessee of the public house, Huo Peiying, by exchanging property rights, with the address of Room 204, No. 3, Lane 121, Donglan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, Huo Peiying paid a price difference of 476706.84 yuan to the housing expropriation department; 2、 The housing expropriation department provides a total of 492150 yuan in subsidies and reward fees to Huo Peiying's household. The relocation and installation fees for household facilities are settled based on the actual situation, and the signed relocation reward fees are settled based on the relocation date; 3、 Hopei Ying households should relocate to the above-mentioned property exchange address within 15 days from the date of receiving the compensation decision for property expropriation, and vacate the expropriated property.

The plaintiff is not satisfied with the compensation decision for expropriation and applies for administrative reconsideration to the Shanghai Municipal People's Government. After reconsideration, the Shanghai Municipal People's Government maintains the compensation decision for expropriation of the house. The plaintiff remained dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai, demanding the revocation of the sued expropriation compensation decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai believes that the defendant has the administrative authority to make a decision on compensation for the expropriation of the sued house. The administrative procedure for the compensation decision for the expropriation of the sued house is legal, the application of legal norms is correct, and the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff's household are not harmed. The main controversy in this case lies in whether the nature of the expropriated property of the plaintiff's household should be recognized as a residential or non residential property. After investigation, it was found that Shanghai Yanglin Jilong Investment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Jilong Ecological and Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd., both of which Sun Weixuan is the legal representative, have their residences in Jinshan District of this city. Although their business address is registered as No. 281 Shunchang Road, this city, their business term is from December 2003 to December 2008, and the plaintiff's rental of public housing is for residential purposes. The plaintiff's demand for compensation from Sun Weixuan's operating company lacks legal basis, and there is no such provision in the expropriation compensation plan. The defendant's expropriation compensation decision to compensate for his residential property is legally valid. Based on this, the first instance court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit request. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that it has positive reference significance for how to define whether the expropriated house belongs to residential housing and apply different compensation standards. In practice, the premise that the people are most concerned about "what standard to supplement" is often "what nature and purpose the house belongs to", which is controversial in this regard. In practice, the court usually determines the nature of the property based on the purpose stated in the property registration certificate. However, if the stated purpose is inconsistent with the claims of the expropriated party, it is necessary for them to provide a business license and other relevant evidence to support the determination of different compensation standards. In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the property in question was a non residential property, so the court did not support its claim.

7、 Mao Peirong v. Yongchang County People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

In January 2012, the People's Government of Yongchang County drafted the "Compensation Plan for the Acquisition of Houses on State owned Land for the Construction Project of Beihaizi Scenic Area in Yongchang County" and publicly solicited opinions from the public. After the expiration of the term, the decision on the expropriation of houses on state-owned land related to the construction project of Beihaizi Scenic Area in Yongchang County will be made and announced. The plaintiffs Mao Peirong, Liu Jihua, and Mao Xianfeng (married, father son relationship) jointly owned one residential house (with an area of 276 square meters) and one industrial house (with an area of 775.8 square meters), all within the scope of expropriation. After being notified by the housing expropriation department, Mao Peirong and others have selected an evaluation institution to evaluate the expropriated houses. After the evaluation report was made, Mao Peirong and others applied for a review on the grounds of missing evaluations. After the review by the evaluation agency, a new evaluation report was made and detailed explanations were provided for the missing evaluation items. On December 26 of the same year, after multiple unsuccessful negotiations with Mao Peirong regarding compensation matters, the housing expropriation department informed them that if they had any objections to the results of the housing valuation review, they could apply for appraisal to the Jinchang Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee within 10 days from the date of receiving the notice in accordance with the "Evaluation Measures for Housing Expropriation on State owned Land". Mao Peirong did not apply for appraisal within the specified time limit. On January 9, 2013, the county government made Yongzheng Zhengbu (2013) No. 1 "Decision on Compensation for the Expropriation of Mao Peirong Housing on State owned Land", compensating for residential houses, indoor and outdoor decoration of houses, industrial houses and accessories, and losses from production and business stoppage within the scope of the expropriation involved. The expropriated party chose monetary compensation, with a total compensation amount of RMB 1842612. Mao Peirong, Liu Jihua, and Mao Xianfeng believe that the compensation is unreasonable and the compensation price is too low, and they have filed an administrative reconsideration with the municipal government. The reconsideration authority has reviewed and upheld the county government's decision on expropriation compensation. Mao Peirong, Liu Jihua, and Mao Xianfeng were dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit requesting the revocation of the expropriation compensation decision.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Jinchang City held that the county government has the right to expropriate houses on the plaintiff's state-owned land in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State owned Land" by organizing the implementation of ecological protection and scenic area planning and construction in Beihaizi, the county town, for the needs of public utilities. Due to the failure of the housing expropriation department and the expropriated party to reach a compensation agreement within the agreed period of the expropriation compensation plan, the county government has the authority to make compensation decisions in accordance with the expropriation compensation plan in accordance with the law. In the process of expropriation and compensation, the evaluation institution is selected by the plaintiff themselves, and the evaluation institution has corresponding qualifications. The review evaluation report has clearly explained the omitted evaluation items proposed by the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff had objections to the evaluation and review results, they did not apply for appraisal to the Jinchang Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee within the specified period. Therefore, the county government shall provide compensation to the plaintiff for residential houses and their decorations, industrial houses and their attachments, and losses from production and business suspension due to the expropriation behavior, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Regulations on the Implementation of Housing Expropriation and Compensation on State owned Land in Gansu Province". The determination of the facts in the sued expropriation compensation decision is clear, the application of laws and regulations is correct, and the procedure is legal. Sui Judgment: Reject the litigation requests of the plaintiffs Mao Peirong, Liu Jihua, and Mao Xianfeng. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court provides strong support for expropriation compensation actions that comply with laws and regulations by playing a judicial supervisory role. In the process of expropriation and compensation in this case, the expropriation department fully and effectively listened to the opinions of the expropriated party on the expropriation and compensation plan, selected evaluation institutions, and determined the compensation scope, ensuring the parties' right to know and participate, and reflecting the principles of openness, fairness, and impartiality. Through the judge's interpretation of the law and reasoning, the plaintiff gradually eliminated their inner doubts and unreasonable psychological expectations. Not only did they not appeal, but soon after they reached a compensation agreement with the expropriation department, the public welfare construction project was smoothly promoted, and the case processing achieved good legal and social effects.

8、 Liao Mingyao v. Longnan County People's Government for Compulsory Demolition of Buildings

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Liao Mingyao's house is located in Dongshengwei Group, Longzhou Village, Longnan Town, Longnan County. In 2011, the defendant Longnan County People's Government approved the construction of the County First People's Hospital, and Liao Mingyao's house was included in the demolition scope of the construction project. Regarding the compensation for demolition and resettlement, staff from the Longnan County People's Government have had multiple consultations with Liao Mingyao, but due to significant differences of opinion, no agreement has been reached. On February 27, 2013, the Land and Planning Department of Longnan County identified some of Liao Mingyao's houses as illegal buildings and issued a notice to demolish the illegal buildings on their own. In March of the same year, the People's Government of Longnan County organized relevant departments to forcibly demolish Liao Mingyao's illegally built houses without following the relevant provisions of the Administrative Compulsory Law, making mandatory enforcement decisions, and informing the parties of their litigation rights. At the same time, they also partially demolished the legitimate houses within the scope of demolition, resulting in the loss of their normal use function. Liao Mingyao believed that the forced demolition of his house and destruction of property by the Longnan County People's Government seriously violated his legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, in July 2013, he filed an administrative lawsuit with the Ganzhou Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to confirm that the administrative act of the Longnan County People's Government demolishing his house was illegal. The Intermediate People's Court of Ganzhou City transferred the case to the People's Court of Anyuan County for trial. After accepting the case, the Anyuan County People's Court served a copy of the complaint and a notice of proof to the Longnan County People's Government within the statutory period. However, the government only provided the court with relevant evidence of administrative punishment for Liao Mingyao's illegal building within the statutory period, and did not provide relevant evidence and basis for the administrative act of forced demolition of the house.

（2） Judgment results

The Anyuan County People's Court believes that, in accordance with Articles 32 and 43 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 26 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant has the burden of proof for the specific administrative action taken and should provide evidence for the specific administrative action taken within 10 days from the date of receiving a copy of the complaint, If it is not provided, it shall be deemed that there is no evidence for the specific administrative act. The defendant Longnan County People's Government in this case, after receiving a copy of the complaint and the notice of proof, has not submitted evidence of the forced demolition of the plaintiff's house. Therefore, it should be determined that the defendant's administrative act of forcibly demolishing the plaintiff's house lacks evidence and does not have legality. Based on this, in accordance with the provisions of Article 57, Paragraph 2 (2) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, it is confirmed that the administrative act of demolishing Liao Mingyao's house by the Longnan County People's Government is illegal.

After the judgment came into effect, Liao Mingyao filed an administrative compensation lawsuit with the court in May 2014. After multiple coordination by the Anyuan County People's Court, Liao Mingyao and the Longnan County People's Government reached a settlement agreement on the losses caused by illegal administrative actions and the demolition of all their houses. Liao Mingyao withdrew the lawsuit and the administrative dispute was resolved in substance.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that it highlights the burden of proof and judicial authority of administrative organs in administrative litigation, and has a warning effect on promoting active response of administrative organs and their staff, continuously strengthening litigation awareness, evidence awareness, and responsibility awareness. The legal and judicial interpretations clearly stipulate the burden of proof for administrative organs in litigation. Failure to provide evidence within the statutory deadline is considered as the absence of evidence for the sued administrative act, which is the legal bottom line for courts to handle such cases. In this case, the defendant demolished the plaintiff's legitimate house during the process of demolishing illegal buildings, and failed to provide evidence to prove the legality of their actions to the court within the statutory time limit during the subsequent litigation process. Therefore, they can only bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit.

9、 Ye Chengsheng, Ye Chengchang, and Ye Cheng filed a lawsuit against the Renhua County People's Government for housing administrative coercion

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2009, the Renhua County People's Government (hereinafter referred to as the Renhua County Government) planned to build a non-ferrous metal circular economy industrial base in Renhua County, which required the acquisition of some land from the Xinwei Village Group of the Xinzhuang Village Committee in Zhoutian Town, Renhua County, Guangdong Province. The land occupied by the houses of Ye Chengsheng, Ye Chengchang, and Ye Chengfa (hereinafter referred to as Ye Chengsheng and others) is within the scope of the expropriated land, and belongs to the "two violation" buildings that have not been approved by the township planning and have not obtained land use certificates. From August 2009 to July 2013, the Renhua County government successively posted documents such as "Notice on Prohibiting Rush Planting and Construction", "Notice on Land Acquisition", "Pre announcement on Land Acquisition", "Letter to the Villagers", and "Notice on Ordering to Stop All Violations of Construction" on the village committee and village group of the expropriated land, informing Ye Chengsheng and the three others that the land occupied by their houses is illegal land use through investigation records and other forms. In October 2009 and June 2013, the Land and Resources Bureau of Renhua County issued two separate "notices" requesting Ye Chengfa to stop illegal land activities. At around 5:00 am on July 12, 2013, the Renhua County Government organized personnel to forcibly demolish the houses of Ye Chengsheng and three others without issuing a notice or announcement of forced demolition. Ye Chengsheng and three others subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province, requesting confirmation that the forced demolition by the Renhua County Government was illegal.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province believes that although the use of rural collective land by Ye Chengsheng and other three people to build houses without government approval is illegal construction, the Renhua County government forced the demolition of the houses built by Ye Chengsheng and other three people in the early morning of July 12, 2013. There were serious flaws in the procedure, that is, before the forced demolition was carried out, no notice of forced demolition was issued to Ye Chengsheng and the three people, and no notice of forced demolition was sent to the village committee where the forced demolition houses were located The villagers' group posted a notice to demolish it within a specified time limit, which violates the provisions of Article 34 and Article 44 of the Administrative Compulsory Law of the People's Republic of China. Moreover, the implementation of administrative compulsory execution by the Renhua County government at night does not comply with the provisions of Article 43 (1) of the Administrative Compulsory Law of the People's Republic of China, which states that "administrative organs shall not implement compulsory execution at night or on statutory holidays". Based on this, in accordance with Article 57 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment confirms that the specific administrative act of the Renhua County Government on July 12, 2013, which carried out administrative compulsory demolition of the houses of Ye Chengsheng and three others, was illegal. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in fully reflecting the important functions of administrative trial supervision, government administration in accordance with the law, and safeguarding the basic rights and interests of citizens. Even for the compulsory demolition of illegal buildings, it is necessary to strictly follow the procedural provisions of the Administrative Compulsory Law. Before demolition, the relative party should be notified to demolish them themselves, and notices should be posted locally, and it is not allowed to demolish them at night. The defendant in this case did not comply with these procedural requirements and was determined by the people's court to be illegal. The Administrative Compulsory Law has been in effect since January 1, 2012, and the judgment in this case has helped to promote the correct application of the law in administrative trials.

10、 Ye Hanxiang v. Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau and Shifeng District People's Government of Zhuzhou City in Hunan Province for Not Fulfilling the Legal Duty of Demolition of Illegal Buildings

（1） Basic facts of the case

In July 2010, Shen Fuxiang, the head of household at No. 111 Xiaodongmen, Minzhu Village, Dongmen Community, Tianxin Street, Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, demolished the old house left by his father Shen Hanru without the approval of the defendant Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau and other relevant units, and built and expanded a new house, seriously affecting the passage and lighting of the original defendant Ye Hanxiang. The plaintiff reported to the defendant Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau on July 9, 2010. The bureau conducted an investigation and inspection of the newly built and expanded houses in Shen Fuxiang in October 2010. On October 23, 2010, the bureau issued a notice of administrative penalty (No. 462) of Zhugui Penalty Notice (Shifeng) Zi (2010) to Shen Fuxiang, informing him that his building behavior violated Article 40 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China and was considered illegal construction. According to Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China, within five days from the date of receiving the notification, the demolition shall be carried out without compensation. If the demolition is not carried out within the specified period, the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City shall organize the demolition. The notice was delivered to Shen Fuxiang himself, who was unable to dismantle it. From 2010 to 2013, the plaintiff Ye Hanxiang reported and requested the mandatory demolition of Shen Fuxiang's illegal buildings to the Dongmen Community Committee of Tianxin Street in Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, the Planning Bureau of Zhuzhou City, and the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City. However, the request was not resolved in a timely manner through application forms. On March 8, 2013, the defendant, Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau, issued an administrative penalty decision against Shen Fuxiang with Zhugui Penalty Zi (Shi 2013) Zi No. 6021. It is determined that Shen Fuxiang's construction behavior violates Article 40 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 25 of the Measures for the Implementation of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China in Hunan Province, and is illegal construction. According to Article 64 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 51 of the Measures for the Implementation of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China in Hunan Province, Shen Fuxiang is limited to demolish without compensation within three days from the date of receiving the decision. If this decision is not fulfilled within the specified time limit, in accordance with Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 54 of the Implementation Measures of the Hunan Province (Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China), and the provisions of Zhuzhengfa (2008) No. 36 document, the People's Government of Shifeng District will organize and implement compulsory demolition. Due to the failure of the defendant Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau and the People's Government of Shifeng District in Zhuzhou City to fully fulfill their statutory responsibilities for demolishing illegal buildings, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit with the court on June 5, 2013.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Hetang District, Zhuzhou City believes that the defendant, the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, should actively fulfill its legal responsibilities and organize the compulsory demolition of illegal construction in accordance with the authorization of the Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau after receiving the administrative penalty notice No. 004 (2010) and the administrative penalty decision No. 0021 (2013) from the Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau in December 2010. Although the defendant, the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, coordinated the illegal construction of Shen Fuxiang in the performance of its duties, but did not actively take measures, and its demolition of illegal construction work was not in place, which is not fully fulfilling the legal responsibility of demolishing illegal buildings. According to Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 54, Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant, the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, was sentenced to perform the administrative act of demolishing Shen Fuxiang's illegal construction within three months. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is to use the administrative inaction lawsuit filed by neighboring owners of illegal construction as a carrier, effectively exert judicial initiative, and urge administrative agencies to effectively and fully fulfill their legal responsibilities of demolishing illegal construction and ensuring people's livelihood. In response to the large number of illegal constructions in various regions and the trend of spreading in some areas, although the Urban and Rural Planning Law stipulates that people's governments at or above the county level have the right to forcibly demolish illegal constructions that violate urban planning and township governments that violate rural planning, the actual situation is not ideal. Illegal construction that infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of neighboring rights holders has become a common phenomenon and a weak link that is difficult to remedy. The judgment in this case indicates that the court should have an attitude towards this issue: even if the administrative agency has taken certain measures to investigate and punish the illegal construction, if it is not in place, it still constitutes incomplete performance of legal responsibilities. The court has the right to request the administrative agency to further fulfill its duties. The trial efforts in this area need to be continuously strengthened.