Due to the dispute over the area of the demolished house, the demolished person and the street office had a dispute, and the lawsuit was rejected by the court because it exceeded the statutory statute of limitations. Faced with an unresolved dispute, the prosecutor conducted an in-depth investigation that eventually resolved the dispute
Yao Wen/Comics
The demolished person, Li Hua (pseudonym), claimed that the demolished house was 46.74 square meters; the street office said that Li Hua was demolished only a simple house of 20 square meters, and was compensated 300 yuan per square meter according to the policy standard. The two sides insisted on each other's opinions, and the dispute dragged on for a long time, and Li Hua applied to the procuratorial organs for supervision.
How to quell the 7-year-long "tug-of-war"? How to find a breakthrough? After in-depth investigation, the procurators of the Xuzhou Municipal Procuratorate in Jiangsu Province found the crux of the contradiction and actively resolved the dispute. In the end, Li Hua agreed to reach a settlement with the street office, receiving 10,000 yuan in compensation, and the dispute that lasted for 7 years came to an end.
Houses were demolished
Compensation area is disputed
In December 2017, Li Hua, an individual industrial and commercial household, filed an administrative lawsuit demanding that the street office compensate the demolished 46.74 square meters of house and the property loss in the house for 600,000 yuan. The court held that Li Hua's house was demolished in December 2014, and he had only filed a lawsuit after three years, which had exceeded the time limit for filing a lawsuit, so it dismissed Li Hua's lawsuit. In August 2021, Li Hua applied to the Xuzhou Municipal Procuratorate for supervision.
Li Hua said that since the day the house was demolished, he has been running around for this matter, looking for the street office where the house was demolished to negotiate and compensate. He believes that the street office should not have demolished the house without seeking its consent and without agreeing to the amount of compensation. The street office kept saying that it would be resolved, but there was no result, and later he sued the court, but it was dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. Li Hua also submitted to the procuratorate the business license and business premises certificate of the individual industrial and commercial household to confirm that the demolished house area is indeed 46.74 square meters, which is its own property rights.
Since Li Hua had indeed exceeded the time limit for filing a lawsuit when he sued, there was no problem with the court's decision. However, the dispute has been unresolved for 7 years, and in this "tug-of-war", both sides urgently need to find a breakthrough to resolve the dispute.
Prosecutors approached the street office, and the office staff also told their difficulties: "The specific demolition situation is due to personnel changes and a long time, and some details cannot be verified. According to the household survey form, we believe that the scope of compensation is the price of 20 square meters of simple houses, and according to the policy at that time, the compensation standard for simple houses was 300 yuan per square meter, and the assessed price of Li Hua's house was 6,000 yuan. But Li Hua claimed that the house was demolished was nearly 50 square meters and provided a business license, but he could not provide a property right certificate, so of course we could not accept it; he said that the contents of the house were damaged by us, and asked for 60,000 yuan in compensation, but also failed to provide evidence, so the two sides have been unable to stand on each other. ”
Ding Quanjun, the prosecutor who undertook the case, realized that the core issue of the dispute between the two sides was whether Li Hua's demolished house was a simple house or a business house, and what was the area.
Dig deeper
The truth is clear
If you want to resolve a dispute, you must find out the truth. Although the original site has been demolished, Ding Quanjun decided to take a trip to look for clues. When he asked around the original site if anyone knew about the demolition situation that year, he met Wu Feng (pseudonym), who ran a noodle shop opposite the original site. Wu Feng is the tenant who used to rent Li Hua's house for business purposes and did not move out until the house was demolished.
Wu Feng told Ding Quanjun that the house he rented was not Li Hua's own, and That Li Hua was actually the "second landlord". The two façade rooms, totaling 36 square meters, were rented by Li Hua from Xincheng Primary School (pseudonym) and subleased to himself in 2011. When renting a house, Li Hua packaged the refrigerator and other household appliances, furniture and other items to himself for 13,000 yuan. Another simple house made of asbestos tiles is about 20 square meters, which Li Hua borrowed from the school's wall and one of the walls of the façade room.
In July 2014, the subdistrict office began to mobilize demolition work. Every time the relocation personnel came to the door, Wu Feng informed Li Hua to deal with it, but Li Hua never came forward. On the day that the relocated personnel entered the household to investigate and measure the area of the house, Wu Feng also told Li Hua, but Li Hua still did not come forward, and Wu Feng had to sign Li Hua's name on behalf of the "Housing and Land Status Survey Form" at the request of the relocated personnel. When the house was demolished, Wu Feng was also on the scene, and the large items in the room had also been moved out. At the same time, Wu Feng also provided a contract for renting a house from Li Hua that year, which clearly stated that the two façade houses belonged to Xincheng Primary School.
Since the house was rented by Li Hua from Xincheng Primary School, Xincheng Primary School must have a record. Following this line of thought, Ding Quanjun found the Xincheng Primary School again, and after several twists and turns, found the staff responsible for renting the façade house at that time to understand the origin of the matter.
The staff recounted the process of renting the two facades to Li Hua in August 2006 and signing a written lease agreement, and submitted the rental agreement to the prosecutor. At the same time, the staff told the prosecutor that the compensation for the façade room had already been given to the school by the street office; and Li Hua built the simple house on his own without the consent of the school, not only occupying the school's land, but also occupying two walls of the school, one was the school wall, and the other was the side wall of the façade room rented to him. The school staff's statement is consistent with Wu Feng's statement, and there are original contracts and other testimonies, and the truth gradually comes out.
But the business license records that the 46.74 square meter house belongs to Li Hua, what is the matter? In order to eliminate doubts, the procuratorial organs decided to obtain the original materials of the industrial and commercial registration. The procurator went to the local industrial and commercial bureau to retrieve the file materials for the business license and found that there was indeed a "Certificate of Business Premises" in the file materials, which confirmed that the 46.74 square meters of house belonged to Li Hua, and the official seals of the street office and the village committee were stamped at the place where the money was paid. However, the note at the end of the certificate is "only for the use of business licenses", and the copy of the certificate submitted by Li Hua to the procuratorate does not have this line of remarks. The prosecutor realized that Li Hua was likely hiding some facts, but why did the village committee and the subdistrict office issue this certificate?
With this question, the procurator again rushed to find the village cadres. Village cadres told prosecutors that they also knew that the place of business where Li Hua had registered for a business license was the school's house. However, in order to support the economic development of the village, the village will give a certificate to the self-employed who apply for a business license. However, they are also worried about disputes after the fact, so the certificate will be marked "only for the use of business licenses". In view of the fact that the certificate was made by the village committee, the subdistrict office directly stamped and confirmed.
The truth is out! Li Hua only has property rights and interests in a simple house of 20 square meters. However, the street office forcibly demolished the house without reaching a compensation agreement with Li Hua, and there was also improper law enforcement.
Resolve disputes
The case was closed and the government was reconciled
After clarifying the facts, the procuratorial organs began to promote the resolution of contradictions. Due to the huge disparity in the amount of compensation claimed by the two sides and the long time span of the dispute, Ding Quanjun has repeatedly done work "back-to-back" for the street office and Li Hua.
Ding Quanjun showed Li Hua objective evidence such as the certificate of business premises and the original lease contract, and told Li Hua in a serious tone: "After investigation, we found that only 20 square meters of simple houses were built by yourself, and you have property rights to this. The land and façade houses are schools, and the business premises registered on the business license include the school's façade houses, which you also know; you claim the loss of items in the house, and it is understood that you have already packaged and sold those household appliances. We also understand your grievances, the government demolished the house without reaching a consensus with you. But beforehand, the staff of the street office also looked for you five times, but you have not shown up, we know that you may also want to 'fight for a breath', but you also have to make a reasonable claim within the scope of what you deserve, right? Li Hua frequently nodded as he listened, and voluntarily gave up the original high compensation claim.
On the other hand, Ding Quanjun also pointed out that in the process of demolition, the street office demolished the house without reaching a compensation agreement, and there were indeed improper procedural points, which caused certain losses to the rights and interests of the parties. The staff said that the street office was willing to compensate from beginning to end, but because the difference between the two sides on the amount of compensation was too large, it had not been discussed.
In order to build a communication platform for the two sides, the procuratorial organs held a meeting between the two sides, and invited the village committee and the police station under the jurisdiction to send personnel to participate in the meeting and persuade peace "face to face". In order to dispel Li Hua's doubts, the procuratorate also decided to hold a public hearing on the case, inviting three lawyers with rich legal experience to serve as hearing officers.
At the hearing, Li Hua and the street office fully expressed their views. The hearing officer inquired in detail about the process of Li Hua's prosecution and the demolition process of the street office, and pointed out that Li Hua had exceeded the statutory prosecution period when he sued, and there were improper circumstances in the law enforcement process of the street office, and the two sides agreed on the spot to solve the problem through settlement.
After the hearing, after several rounds of consultation, in the end, the street office compensated Li Hua for the loss of simple house and the loss of interest on the compensation payment for a total of 10,000 yuan, and both parties recognized the result of the treatment.
On November 10, 2021, Li Hua voluntarily withdrew his application for supervision.
"Things have been dragging on for a long time, and we are also exhausted, Li Hua has repeatedly petitioned and called the police, which has consumed a lot of manpower and material resources." The procuratorial organs have the courage to take responsibility, do good deeds, find out the truth, and convince people with reason, which has also solved our difficult problems. The relevant person in charge of the street office thanked him heartily.
■ Prosecutor's statement
Promote the resolution of administrative disputes in a reasonable and well-founded manner
For administrative litigation supervision cases that have not undergone substantive trial by the court and are only idle procedures, in the process of handling, the procuratorial organs should preliminarily understand the facts of the case and clarify the focus of the dispute between the two parties by reviewing the original judgment file and meeting with the parties. Where public opinions are justified and wives are justified, the procuratorial organs should make full use of the power of investigation and verification to let the "evidence" speak, restore the truth of the facts, distinguish who is right and who is wrong, and finally convince the parties concerned.
Where administrative organs' administrative law enforcement conduct is truly flawed, and losses are caused to the rights and interests of administrative counterparts, the administrative counterparts shall be compensated for their losses in accordance with law. However, the compensation standard must be grasped within the scope prescribed by law, and resolutely avoid "muddy mud" in order to settle disputes, so as to re-establish the belief in strict administration according to law. Where through investigation and verification it is found that the compensation claims submitted by administrative counterparts exceed the reasonable scope, the procuratorial organs should educate and guide the administrative counterparts to claim losses within a reasonable range by laying out the facts, reasoning, and explaining the legal interests, abandon unreasonable and untrue demands, and make every effort to promote the construction of a rule of law environment in which the whole people abide by the law.
(Ding Quanjun, Xuzhou Municipal Procuratorate, Jiangsu Province)
Source: Shaanxi Procuratorial Headlines