Jimbo Law Firm
1. [Supreme Court] Administrative organs shall compensate in accordance with law, whether they are repealed due to legal norms, changes in objective circumstances, or change or withdraw administrative licenses that have already taken effect for the needs of the public interest. Case No.: (2016) SPC Xingshen No. 3344
【Judicial Summary】
The process of coal mine resource integration is a multi-link comprehensive process, involving multiple administrative entities, with the characteristics of multi-stage administrative management; at the same time, it includes both the exercise of administrative power and the consultation of civil subjects, and there are both administrative legal relations and civil legal relations, involving both administrative legal liabilities and civil legal liabilities. The consequences of an offence may be related to the transgression of multiple administrative entities. As far as this case is concerned, the reason why the compensation issue of Hongyuan Coal Industry has not been resolved is that in addition to the Fact that the Baishui County Government may not be in place to perform its duties, the Shaanxi Provincial Land Department canceled the mining license of Hongyuan Coal Industry and issued a new mining license for Fengyuan Coal Industry, and there may also be a situation of failure to fulfill the corresponding obligations, and Fengyuan Coal Industry, as the integrated entity, also has a situation of failure to perform the corresponding obligations, which has an interest in the handling of this case. According to Article 29 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court of first and second instance should participate in the litigation as a third party, and the court of first and second instance did not notify Fengyuan Coal industry and the Land and Resources Department of Shaanxi Province to participate in the litigation, constituting a procedural violation.
2. [Supreme Court] Shanxi Xi'an Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. Shanxi Taiyuan People's Government decision to recover state-owned land use rights. Case No.: (2016) SPC No. 80
There must be compensation for expropriation, and there is no expropriation without compensation. Compensation for expropriation shall follow the principle of timely compensation and the principle of fair compensation. Until the issue of compensation is resolved in accordance with the prescribed procedures, the expropriated person has the right to refuse to hand over the house and land.
3. [Supreme Court] As one of the bases for signing the agreement, the demolition compensation and resettlement plan is only a guiding factual act, and it is not confrontational in terms of legal effect compared with the demolition agreement. Case No.: (2017) SPC Xingshen No. 8836
On March 27, 2014, the Respondent for Retrial and the Project Headquarters of Xuzhuang Village ×× Village, Jinshui District, a temporary institution under the Retrial Applicant, signed the "Agreement on demolition and relocation of Xuzhuang Road Construction Project in Xuzhuang Village, Jinshui District", which clearly stipulates that the transition period is 36 months, and the demolition agreement is the true intention of both parties, and does not violate the prohibitions of laws and administrative regulations. Although the "Compensation and Resettlement Plan for the Demolition and Relocation of Xuzhuang Road Construction Project in Xuzhuang Village, Jinshui District" was used as one of the bases for signing the agreement in the agreement, the plan was only a guiding factual act, and its legal effect was not confrontational compared with the demolition agreement. The applicant for retrial claimed that the 24-month transition period stipulated in the "Compensation and Resettlement Plan for the Demolition and Relocation of Xuzhuang Road Construction Project in Xuzhuang Village, Jinshui District" should be applied, and there was no factual or legal basis.
4. [Supreme Court] The retrial applicant's understanding of the placement object of Document No. 6 of Luoshi Xin'an [2003] is not logical, nor does it conform to the principle of equal protection. Case No.: (2018) SPC Xingshen No. 3320
Judging from the provisions of Document No. 6 [2003] no. 6 of Luoshi Xin'an city on "persons born outside the plan, after being treated according to the family planning policy, carry out housing resettlement in accordance with the standards for the resettlement of the agricultural population", it should be understood as an exception to the "public security household registration register on May 31, 2003", which should be understood as a person born before May 31, 2003 in the demolition village, who was not registered in the public security household registration book because he was born unplanned, and was later treated by the family planning policy and was registered in the public security household registration book. Housing resettlement should be carried out in accordance with the criteria for the resettlement of the agricultural population. This provision also gives unplanned births the opportunity to change from no household registration to household registration through the treatment of the family planning policy, so as to become the target of resettlement, and the court of second instance found that the respondent Guo Jiawei was not improper. The retrial applicant's understanding of the retrial applicants for the placement of objects in Luoshi Xin'an [2003] No. 6 document is not logical and does not conform to the principle of equal protection
5. [Supreme Court] Whether or not to enjoy the treatment of villagers should not be simply determined by whether or not they hold a homestead use certificate. Case No.: (2018) SPC Xingshen No. 3774
Liu Baosheng, as a villager of Duanzhuang Village in Zhongyuan District, Zhengzhou City, moved to the new village in 1992 due to the needs of Zhengzhou Municipal Construction, and Liu Baosheng paid the homestead use fee and deposit. Later, due to the need for the construction of the new rural area in the village, the homestead land needed to be occupied by the third and fifth villager groups of the village, so the third and fifth villager groups rented the land of the villagers in 2008 and paid the lease fee, handed over the land to Liu Baosheng for use, and built the house in that year to live in the present. Although Liu Baosheng does not hold a homestead use permit, it cannot be denied that in 1992 Liu Baosheng obtained homestead land according to law, Liu Baosheng was born in the village, and after retirement, the hukou moved back to the village, so he should enjoy the treatment of Villagers in Duanzhuang Village. The court of second instance ruled that it was not improper for the applicant for retrial to carry out the compensation and resettlement of Liu Baosheng in accordance with article 4 (1) and item 2 of the "Plan for Compensation and Resettlement of Urban Villages in Duanzhuang Village".
6. [Supreme Court] When the government expropriates housing, it must sign an expropriation compensation agreement with the administrative counterpart and perform the duties of compensation and resettlement. Case No.: (2018) SPC Xingshen No. 7526
Judging from the evidence in the case, the Yuncheng City Government made an expropriation decision and an expropriation compensation plan for the area where the applicant's house was located, and the retrial applicant's house had also been demolished, but there was no evidence to show that the Yuncheng City Government signed an expropriation compensation agreement or made an expropriation compensation decision with the retrial applicant, that is, the Yuncheng City Government did not perform the duty of compensation and resettlement for the retrial applicant, in this case, the court of first instance ruled that the Yuncheng City Government made a decision to handle Huaxi Company's application, and the second-instance court upheld the original judgment, which was an error in the application of law.
7. [Supreme Court] Jin Zhengfa [2013] Document No. 22 was published on the website of the Shanxi Provincial People's Government on June 9, 2013, but it cannot be proved that the applicant was informed of the contents of the document. Case No.: (2018) SPC Xingshen No. 9014
The first-instance litigation request of the retrial applicant is: "The people's government of Tunliu County is required to increase the compensation for the expropriation of orchard land acquisition compensation fees of 11189.60 yuan per mu, 8.8 mu, a total of 98468.48 yuan." "According to the facts of the original review, the applicant for the retrial was compensated at a standard of 28,576.80 yuan per mu on March 12, 2014, and his lawsuit in this case to request an increase in the compensation fee for land acquisition was based on the Notice of the People's Government of Shanxi Province on Adjusting the Unified Annual Output Value Standard of Land Requisition in the Province" of Jin Zhengfa [2013] No. 22. Although Document Jin Zhengfa [2013] No. 22 was published on the website of the Shanxi Provincial People's Government on June 9, 2013, the document was only published on the website, and the respondent failed to produce evidence to prove that the content of the document was informed to the retrial applicant, so it cannot be inferred that the retrial applicant already knew of the existence and related content of the document at this time. The retrial applicant and other villagers in the same village were paid additional compensation on July 27, 2015 due to Document Jin Zhengfa [2013] No. 22, and the retrial applicant claimed that it was reasonable to know that Jin Zhengfa [2013] No. 22 document and that the compensation should be increased at this time.
8. [Supreme Court] Lawful migrant workers who are migrant workers are persons who should be resettled and shall enjoy the corresponding resettlement compensation treatment. Case No.: (2018) SPC No. 46
This court believes that peasants' migration to the cities to work has made a major contribution to China's modernization drive. All along, the Cpc Central Committee and the State Council have attached great importance to the issue of migrant workers, and have formulated a series of policies and measures to protect the rights and interests of migrant workers and improve the employment environment of migrant workers. Among them, the "Several Opinions on Resolving the Problem of Migrant Workers" issued by the State Council in 2006 clearly pointed out that in order to protect the democratic and political rights enjoyed by migrant workers in accordance with the law, the villagers' committees where migrant workers are registered should promptly notify migrant workers when deciding on major matters involving the rights and interests of migrant workers, and exercise democratic rights through appropriate means. Although this opinion is not an administrative regulation, it clearly conveys that even if migrant workers work abroad for a long time, they cannot deprive them of the policy orientation of the treatment of villagers they deserve on the grounds of non-"permanent residence". In fact, in the "Annex" to the expropriation compensation plan in this case, "active military personnel who were villagers in their own villages before joining the army, and school students who were villagers in their own villages before attending college and secondary school" and "persons who returned to their places of origin after serving their sentences and who are serving sentences through re-education through labor" have been included in the scope of the verification population. According to the rules of logical reasoning, the above-mentioned persons are also not "permanent residents" in the village, but the retrial applicant lists them as resettlement persons, excluding legal migrant workers from the scope of the verified population, which is obviously the same situation and does not meet the requirements of the socialist core values of "equality" and "justice". Accordingly, this claim is not supported by this Court.
9. [Supreme Court] Even if an administrative act is lawful, if it causes harm to the lawful rights and interests of the administrative counterpart, fair and reasonable compensation shall be given. Case No.: (2018) SPC No. 69
Article 12 (12) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China provides that citizens, legal persons or other organizations may initiate an administrative lawsuit where they believe that an administrative organ has infringed upon the lawful rights and interests of others such as personal rights and property rights. Beichuan County's Drum Pyrite has the right to file an administrative lawsuit with the people's court after submitting the "Application for Administrative Compensation" to the Beichuan County Government without a reply. In this case, the Beichuan County Government requested beichuan County to close the Baogu Pyrite mine on February 9, 2012, and Notice No. 54 was only issued and implemented on November 4, 2012, so the court of first instance held that it was the closure of the mine due to the issuance of the notice and had no factual basis. Since this case lacks the basis and relevant evidence that Beichuan County's Drum Pyrite is applicable to the policy closure, the court of first instance ruled that it was indeed improper to dismiss the lawsuit and appeal of Beichuan County Drum Pyrite on the grounds that beichuan County's compensation for the policy-based closure of non-metallic mines did not fall within the scope of the people's court's administrative litigation. The Beichuan County Government's defense that beichuan County's Drum Pyrite Is Closed by Itself in Accordance with the Law and It is Impossible to Obtain Any Administrative Compensation is inconsistent with the facts of this case, has no legal basis, and this court does not support it.
10. [Supreme Court] China's rural areas have long managed the acquisition and use of homestead land on a household-by-household basis, and in the process of expropriation compensation and resettlement, it has become a customary practice to carry out resettlement compensation on a household-by-household basis. Case No.: (2018) SPC No. 107
In practice, although some "compensation and resettlement plans" have been discussed and adopted by villagers' committees, according to article 43 of the "Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China", "any unit or individual who needs to use land for construction must apply for the use of state-owned land in accordance with the law", and the third paragraph of article 25 of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China: "The competent land administration departments of the municipal and county people's governments shall, in accordance with the approved land expropriation plan, work together with relevant departments to formulate a land requisition compensation and resettlement plan." Public announcements shall be made in the townships (towns) and villages where the expropriated land is located, and the opinions of the rural collective economic organizations and peasants whose expropriated land is to be heard. After the compensation and resettlement plan for land requisition is reported to the municipal or county people's government for approval, it is to be organized and implemented by the competent land administration department of the municipal or county people's government. The administrative organ is the legal subject of the compensation and resettlement work of collective land expropriation, and it shall bear legal responsibility for the compensation and resettlement work of demolition and relocation. If the role played by administrative organs in collective land expropriation projects has gone beyond the guidance, support and assistance provided for in the Organic Law of Villagers' Committees, but has actually led, organized and controlled, and the overall development and utilization of relevant land has also exceeded the legal positioning of villagers' committees in the Organic Law of Villagers' Committees for self-management, self-education and self-service of villagers' committees, then the formulation and implementation of the "Compensation and Resettlement Plan" does not belong to the villagers' autonomous acts and belongs to the scope of administrative litigation.
The Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China and its implementing regulations do not make specific provisions on the compensation for the resettlement of rural residents and personnel. In practice, due to the long-term management of the acquisition and use of homestead land in rural areas of China, in the process of compensation and resettlement of collective land expropriation, resettlement compensation by household has become a habitual practice in many places.
11. [Supreme Court] Regarding whether the compensation situation of separate households should be disclosed, there should be no difference between the expropriation of houses on collective land and state-owned land, and may be applied by reference. Case No.: (2018) SPC No. 180
Although the situation of compensation for separate households involves the personal privacy of other households to a certain extent, in order to ensure the openness and fairness of the expropriation compensation and eliminate the doubts and worries of the expropriated persons about unfair compensation, the law has made a certain concession of such personal privacy. According to the third item of article 11 of the "Open Government Information Regulations", "expropriation or requisition of land, housing demolition, and the issuance and use of compensation and subsidy expenses" is "government information disclosed by districted city-level people's governments, county-level people's governments, and their departments". The first paragraph of Article 29 of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land stipulates: "The housing expropriation department shall establish a housing expropriation compensation file in accordance with law, and announce the compensation of each household to the expropriated person within the scope of housing expropriation." "Although this case involves the expropriation of collective land, whether the compensation for separate households should be disclosed, and there should be no difference between the expropriation of collective land and houses on state-owned land, which can be applied by reference." As a villager within the scope of land expropriation, the applicant for retrial has the right to know the compensation for each household, and the respondent to the retrial shall disclose this government information to the applicant for retrial.
12. [Supreme Court] Zheng Zhengwen [2014] No. 142 provides that the application of this case will result in the amount of compensation obtained by the applicant for retrial due to the illegal demolition of the vegetable greenhouse is significantly lower than the amount of compensation due. Case No.: (2018) SPC Compensation Shen No. 561
The court of first instance found that the standard of the Notice of the Zhengzhou Municipal People's Government on Adjusting the Compensation Standards for Collective Land Green Shoots and Aboveground Attachments Levied by the State Construction (Zheng Zhengwen [2009] No. 127) which was applied by He Mulin's claim had been replaced by the provisions of zheng Zhengwen [2014] No. 142 "Notice of the Zhengzhou Municipal People's Government on Adjusting the Compensation Standards for Collective Land Green Shoots and Aboveground Attachments for State Construction", and referred to the latter to determine the loss of the retrial applicant's vegetable greenhouse. However, on the one hand, item (5) of Article 1 of the Compensation Plan for the Renovation, Demolition and Resettlement of Shilipu Village clearly stipulates that the issue of compensation for the demolition and relocation of attachments on the land involved in the case should be applied to Zheng Zhengwen [2009] No. 127 document. Zheng Zhengwen [2014] No. 142 document also clearly stipulates that before the issuance of the notice, the compensation standards for land, green shoots fees and attachments on the ground that have been submitted for approval and expropriation are implemented in accordance with the standards determined by the approved plan; on the other hand, from the content stipulated in Zheng Zhengwen [2014] No. 142, the document refines the compensation standards for vegetable greenhouses, and applies them to this case, which will lead to the retrial applicant receiving compensation for the illegal demolition of vegetable greenhouses The amount of compensation obtained by the applicant for retrial is significantly lower than that of Zheng Zhengwen [2009] The amount of compensation due to the compensation standard stipulated in document No. 127, resulting in an unfair and unreasonable phenomenon in which the compensation received by the applicant for retrial for the violation is lower than the compensation that can be obtained before the act is confirmed to be illegal. The court of first instance therefore made an error in the application of law on this issue.
13. [Supreme Court] Based on the principle of statutory property rights, the rights obtained by Guo and guo through the signing of the River Development Management Contract Agreement with the River Affairs Office are not the land contract management rights stipulated in the Property Law. Case No.: (2019) SPC Xingshen No. 1676
1. The right to land contractual management refers to the right to possess, use and benefit from the land contractual management rights of the land contractual management rights who are engaged in planting, forestry and animal husbandry, and the land owned by the state by the collective ownership or the state-owned land used by the peasants collectively. Based on the principle of statutory property rights, in the case where the land involved in the case is state-owned river land and the owner of the right to use as state-owned land use certificate is the river affairs office, the rights obtained by Guo Fengrui and guo Fengrui through the signing of the "River Development And Management Contract Agreement" with the river affairs office are not the land contract management rights stipulated in the Property Law of the People's Republic of China. The court of second instance relied on the "River Development Management Contract Agreement" signed between Guo Fengrui and the River Affairs Office, and found that Guo Fengrui and Guo Fengrui were the owners of the usufructuary right, which had no legal basis.
2, on the issue of whether the Suizhong County Government should compensate Guo Fengrui for the compensation for the contracted land. Article 58 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2004) stipulates that in any of the following circumstances, the competent land administration department of the relevant people's government may recover the right to use state-owned land upon the approval of the people's government that originally approved the use of land or the people's government with the right to approve the land: (1) where the use of land is necessary for the public interest; (2) where the use of land is required for the purpose of implementing urban planning for the reconstruction of old urban areas; Where the right to use state-owned land is recovered in accordance with the provisions of items (1) and (2) of the preceding paragraph, appropriate compensation shall be given to the holder of the land use right. It can be seen from this that where the right to use state-owned land is recovered for the sake of the public interest, etc., the holder of the land use right shall be given "appropriate compensation". The owner of the right to use the state-owned land involved in the case is the River Affairs Office, and Guo Fengrui and Guo Fengrui occupied and used the land involved in the case because they signed the "River Development Management Contract Agreement" involved in the case. The court of second instance applied Article 121 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China to find that Guo Fengrui and Guo Fengrui were the owners of the usufructuary right and could receive corresponding compensation, which was an error. For the loss of Guo Fengrui's initial investment, the contract claim can be claimed by filing a separate civil lawsuit against the agreement counterparty in accordance with the law.
14. [Supreme Court] In the litigation in this case, the Xingyang Municipal Government could not deny the validity of the "Attachments Questionnaire" it had produced in the administrative procedure only on the grounds that the work error had led to an untrue inventory of the number of trees. Case No.: (2019) SPC Xingshen No. 6853
The "Attachments Questionnaire" was formed by the Xingyang Municipal Government's expropriation and compensation procedures for Chen Kejian's contracted land, which was investigated by the Xingyang Municipal Housing Expropriation and Compensation Office, the Xingyang Municipal Water Affairs Bureau, the Gaocun Township Government, the Gaocun Township Magou Villagers Committee, and the Fourth Villagers Group of Magou Village, and Chen Kejian also participated in the investigation and was signed and confirmed by the above parties. When the Xingyang Municipal Government compensated Chen Kejian for its appurtenances, it also relied on the number of cypress saplings registered in the Appurtenances Questionnaire. Therefore, in the litigation in this case, the Xingyang Municipal Government could not deny the validity of the "Appurtenances Questionnaire" it produced in the administrative procedure only on the grounds that the work error caused the inventory of the number of trees to be untrue. The "Verification Report" submitted by the Xingyang Municipal Government in the second instance was unilaterally entrusted by it, which is evidence collected on its own in the course of litigation, and cannot negate the validity of the "Attachments Questionnaire". The Xingyang municipal government also claimed that Chen Kejian contracted cypress saplings on the ground to be planted and planted after he learned of the land acquisition, but did not provide evidence to prove it. Therefore, it was not improper for the first and second instances to use the number of cypress saplings determined in the "Appurtenances Questionnaire" as a basis for compensation.
15. [Supreme Court] The families of Wei and Zhou and their father build houses on different homesteads. Therefore, his family did not belong to the situation of "unspecified children" in the compensation and resettlement plan for demolition and relocation involved in the case. Case No.: (2019) SPC Xingshen No. 11654
According to the provisions of item 6 of the second item of the "Resettlement Standards" in Article 6 of the "Resettlement Standards" of the "Compensation and Resettlement Plan for the Demolition and Relocation of Xiaohu Village and City Project in Nancao Township, Guancheng Hui Nationality District", if the villagers' homestead certificate is the name of the children, their parents can freely choose to settle with the children; if the homestead certificate is the name of the parents, the children who have not been assigned to the hospital are resettled with their parents. In this case, according to the retrial application materials submitted by Wei Hongyong, although the Wei Hongyong and Zhou Fengqin families actually built a house on the 9307720 homestead registered in their father's name, Wei Hongyong also had a certificate of use for the construction of the 9307719 collective land construction separately registered in his own name. And according to the relevant certificates issued by the Villagers Committee of Xiaohu Village in Nancao Township, Guancheng Hui Nationality District, Zhengzhou City, and the 13th Villager Group of Xiaohu Village in Nancao Township, Guancheng Hui Nationality District, Zhengzhou City, the Wei Hongyong and Zhou Fengqin families built houses and lived on different homesteads. Therefore, the families of Wei Hongyong and Zhou Fengqin do not belong to the situation of "children who have not been assigned to a hospital" in the compensation and resettlement plan for demolition and relocation involved in the case. The "Opinions of the People's Government of Nancao Township on the Handling of the Issue of The Settlement and Resettlement of Zhou Fengqin in Xiaoweihe Village" held that since the owner of the right to use the homestead used by Wei Hongyong was his father, in accordance with the provision that "the homestead certificate is the name of the parents, and the children of the unzoned courtyard are resettled with their parents", the families of Wei Hongyong and Zhou Fengqin should follow the parents to settle the settlement and resettlement, and the first and second instance judgments held that the above handling opinions were not improper, and the first and second instance judgments had a situation where the facts were not clear and should be corrected.
16. [Supreme Court] Gas station land is commercial land, and the right to use the land for construction purposes shall be obtained through transfer. The examination and approval of state-owned construction land shall be based on the administrative act of application. Case No.: (2019) SPC No. 183
1. The Minutes of the Meeting only indicate that the Xinmin Municipal Government agrees to select a site to rebuild the gas station, and there is no content in which the government agrees to allocate land, and the gas station land should be commercial land according to law, which does not meet the conditions for obtaining construction land by allocation in the above-mentioned legal provisions, and the oil distribution station shall obtain the right to use the construction land through transfer according to the law.
2. The examination and approval of state-owned construction land is based on the administrative act of application, that is, the construction unit must first submit an application to the competent land administration department with approval power.
3. Whereas, the Approval Form for Funding Application (copy) is only an internal approval made by the Xinmin Municipal Government on the request of the Hutai New Town Management Committee, and is not a final administrative compensation decision made for the petroleum distribution station. Therefore, the court of first instance should further ascertain whether the "Approval Form for Application for Funds" complies with the rules for the acceptance of evidence, whether it has produced external effects, and whether it can be used as a basis for judging the loss of suspension of production and suspension of business, etc. The court of first instance has not ascertained and ordered the Xinmin Municipal Government to pay the loss of the suspension of production and suspension of the petroleum distribution station, which is also unclear.
17. [Supreme Court] When expropriating agricultural enterprises with facilities on collective land, in order to fully and reasonably protect the legitimate rights and interests of the expropriated persons, with reference to the state-owned expropriation regulations, the loss of suspension of production and business will be compensated as a direct loss. Case No.: (2019) SPC No. 289
On the issue of loss of suspension of production and business. According to the above-mentioned legal provisions, the loss of suspension of production and suspension of business is clearly stipulated when the houses on state-owned land are expropriated, and there is no clear provision on whether the loss of suspension of production and business needs to be compensated when the houses on collective land are expropriated. However, Article 42 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates that when expropriation of collectively owned land, the land compensation fee, the resettlement subsidy fee, the compensation fee for the attachments on the ground and the compensation fee for young seedlings shall be paid in full in accordance with the law. Therefore, when expropriating agricultural enterprises with facilities on collective land, in order to fully and reasonably protect the legitimate rights and interests of the expropriated persons, the loss of suspension of production and business should be compensated as a direct loss with reference to the regulations on the expropriation of houses on state-owned land. The amount of compensation for the loss of suspension of production and business should generally be determined by the average profit of the enterprise in the previous three years as a reference data, and the compensation shall be six months.
18. [Supreme Court] Allowing the expropriated person to bear the responsibility that is not clear in the current law is not conducive to the timely substantive review of the legality of compensation and resettlement, and promotes the resolution of disputes as soon as possible, which should be corrected. Case No.: (2020) SPC No. 56
1. Therefore, in the case of the dispute over the compensation and resettlement plan, when the applicant applies for administrative reconsideration to the Changsha Municipal Government, the applicant who can apply for reconsideration and review is the approval of the compensation and resettlement plan by the Furong District Government, the act of formulating and announcing the compensation and resettlement plan by the Furong Land Sub-bureau, or the behavior of one of the compensation standards in the compensation and resettlement plan. Therefore, when applying for administrative reconsideration, the expropriated person shall make it clear whether the object of the application for reconsideration review is the approval act or the compensation and resettlement plan, and whether the reconsideration organ is requested to revoke the approval act or the compensation and resettlement plan; the administrative reconsideration procedure of the Changsha Municipal Government should also be under the premise of clarifying the administrative act to be reconsidered, combined with Article 13 of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China, which states that "where a lower-level administrative organ makes a specific administrative act in accordance with the provisions of laws, regulations, and rules, and is approved by the higher-level administrative organ, the approving organ shall be the respondent." ", to determine the eligible respondent.
2. Let the expropriated person bear the unclear responsibility of the current legal provisions, and it is not conducive to the timely substantive review of the legality of compensation and resettlement, and promote the resolution of the dispute as soon as possible, which should be corrected. When continuing to hear the reconsideration decision and the administrative acts maintained by the court of first instance, it may also refer to the spirit of the "Minutes of the Professional Meeting of Administrative Judges of the Supreme People's Court (V)", combined with the progress of compensation and resettlement, the reasons for the differences in compensation and resettlement, the substantive demands of the expropriated person, etc., to guide the expropriated person to correctly select the administrative act being sued and the qualified defendant, and recommend that the expropriated person sue for the compensation and resettlement agreement, the compensation decision, the litigation for requesting the performance of the compensation and resettlement duties, or the request for a compensation decision litigation. Or initiate a lawsuit to confirm the illegality of the compulsory demolition and compensate for losses such as movable property and immovable property; the people's court may review the legality of the compensation and resettlement plan together with the application in the above-mentioned types of litigation.
Lawyer Liu Deyu sorted out