Is the acquisition of allocated land use right free of charge?

The acquisition of transferring land use rights is paid, while the acquisition of allocated land use rights is free. This is a long-standing common saying, and we haven't found anyone opposing it yet. However, this proposition cannot stand scrutiny. First of all, according to the provisions of Article 22 of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Urban Real Estate Management Law, the allocation of land use rights refers to the act of delivering land to land users for use after the land users pay compensation and resettlement fees with the approval of the people's governments at or above the county level, or delivering state-owned land use rights to land users for use without compensation. This provision is the most authoritative definition of the concept of land use right allocation at the legislative level so far. According to this definition, obtaining the allocated land use right is actually divided into two situations: one is that the land user first pays the compensation and resettlement fee to the original land owner or user, and then the state delivers the land to him for use; In another case, the state gives the right to use state-owned land to land users free of charge. In the first case, obviously, the acquisition of allocated land use rights cannot be said to be free. Secondly, in reality, the vast majority of land users only obtain the allocated land use right after paying the compensation and resettlement fees, and the situation of obtaining the allocated land use right free of charge is becoming less and less. For example, according to Guangzhou Municipal People's Government 1988, the construction unit (land-using unit) is responsible for the relocation, resettlement and compensation of the houses allocated for construction. According to this regulation, the land development cost must be paid to obtain the allocated land use right in Guangzhou. Finally, by comparing the fees paid for land use right transfer with those paid for land use right transfer, we can find that they are very close or even completely equal in some cases. According to Article 6 of the Interim Measures of the Ministry of Finance for Financial Management and Accounting of State-owned Land Use Right Transfer Funds, the composition of land transfer fees includes land development expenses, business expenses and net land income. Land development costs include compensation and resettlement fees for the original land owners or users; Business expenditure is the business expenditure of land development, mainly including exploration and design fees, advertising fees, consulting fees, office expenses, etc. Net land income is the income obtained by the government through land development. The land transfer fee is determined through negotiation or market bidding. The proportion of land development costs in different plots is quite different. If the location is poor (such as remote suburbs) or the land development cost is high (such as the old city reconstruction project), the transfer fee is very close to or even equal to the land development cost. In this case, the cost of obtaining land use right by transfer is almost the same as that by allocation. Some scholars believe that even if the allocated land use right holder pays the land acquisition compensation (land development fee), the fee does not belong to the leasing category of land use right, so the allocated land use right is still obtained free of charge. However, this view avoids the core issue of what the land development expenses paid by land users belong to, so it is unconvincing. This paper will analyze the nature of land development expenses paid by allocated land users later. There are two main reasons for the long-term understanding of "allocated land is obtained free of charge": on the one hand, before the reform and opening up, there were indeed a large number of allocated land provided free of charge; On the other hand, it is the mindset formed in people's minds by the long-term planned economy, which holds that between the state and individuals, the national interest is always above everything else, and the interests of individuals (land units) are ignored. As a result, it is natural for the state to recover land for free, but it is difficult for land users to defend their rights after paying huge land development costs.