Shandong Lanling: Expropriation area, forced demolition again! The government refused to admit it, and the court: it can't be exempted!
Appellant: Lanling County People's Government.
Authorized Agent: Ma XX
Appellees: Gu XX and Lu XX.
Authorized Agent: lawyer Wang Weizhou, lawyer Xia Tao, lawyer of Beijing Wandian Law Firm.
Defendants in the original trial: Bianzhuang Sub-district Office of Lanling County People's Government and Lanling County Bureau of Urban Administration and Law Enforcement.
Case review
20 15 due to the need of old city reconstruction, it was decided to expropriate the houses within the shantytown reconstruction project, including Mr. Gu's house. Mr. Gu thinks that the house expropriation decision is illegal and the expropriation compensation and resettlement plan is unreasonable, so he has not reached a compensation and resettlement agreement with the county government. In order to get more compensation, Mr. Gu found lawyers Wang Weizhou and Xia Tao from Beijing Wandian Law Firm after many inquiries. After listening to the ins and outs of Mr. Gu's case, the lawyer found that there were many illegal points in the compensation decision and decided to file an administrative lawsuit against the compensation decision. Unexpectedly, the lawsuit was still in progress and Mr. Gu's house was demolished.
Without any notice or reminder, forced demolition is a naked illegal act. It is incredible that the central government dares to demolish houses in broad daylight under the concept of governing the country according to law. As a result, the lawyer was moved by the wind and quickly filed an administrative lawsuit against the forced demolition.
1. The defendant has no right to forcibly demolish the plaintiff's house.
According to Articles 27 and 28 of the Regulations on Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land and Article 43 of the Administrative Enforcement Law, the house expropriation should be carried out after compensation, and the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit on the compensation and resettlement agreement. The defendant forcibly demolished the houses of the two plaintiffs without applying to the people's court for enforcement on a legal holiday (Saturday), which was a serious violation of the law.
The defendant's behavior caused great losses to the plaintiff and should be compensated according to law.
According to Articles 2 and 36 of the State Compensation Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 38 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, in this case, the defendant forcibly demolished the plaintiff's house, and the plaintiff believed that the defendant could restore and rebuild the plaintiff's house, and the plaintiff urgently needed the existence of the house. In addition, the defendant forcibly demolished the plaintiff's house and smashed many properties such as facilities and articles in the plaintiff's house, causing heavy property losses, which should be compensated according to law.
The county government immediately denied that the forced demolition was done by itself. It turned out that one week before the forced demolition, Mr. Gu no longer lived in the house involved. However, this does not stop the lawsuit. As an experienced lawyer dealing with land acquisition and demolition cases, he has long been used to the tricks of the government. In order to complete the performance of land acquisition and demolition, many local governments directly demolished the houses of villagers who refused to cooperate with the work, but refused to admit it afterwards. Anyway, no one saw it, and there is no evidence.
After trial, the court held that the defendant county government was the main body of forced demolition within the collection area.
According to Articles 4 and 8 of the Regulations on Compensation for Expropriation of Houses on State-owned Land, the county government is the main body of compensation. Although the demolition was denied, the forced demolition of the houses involved occurred in the process of the defendant Lanling County Government as the main body of expropriation. For the demolished houses, the county government did not submit evidence to prove that the houses involved were forcibly demolished by other subjects, so it was confirmed that the county government implemented the forced demolition. Because the plaintiff did not submit the list of relevant items to the court to confirm the loss, and combined with the actual situation, the plaintiff insisted that the defendant "rebuild the house" and refused to support it.
After receiving the verdict, the county government refused to accept it, saying: 1. The court of first instance found that the facts were unclear, the appellant was not the subject of forced demolition, and he was unaware of the forced demolition of the appellee's house. The court of first instance ruled that the appellant had insufficient evidence to compensate for the loss. Immediately appealed to the Shandong Provincial High Court.
After hearing the case, the court of second instance held that the facts of the judgment of the court of first instance were clear and the applicable law was correct, which should be upheld according to law. At present, through the unremitting efforts of lawyers, the issue of compensation in this case has been settled through consultation. Forced demolition was also considered illegal because it was tried twice. At this point, Mr. Gu and others have achieved the purpose of litigation rights protection. The stone hanging in my heart finally fell, and I am very happy!