the administrative ruling
(200 1) Jin Zhong Xing Zi No.43
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Taiyuan New Boiler Auxiliary Equipment Factory, whose domicile is No.235, Tiyu Road, Taiyuan City.
Legal Representative: Ma Dongsheng, director of this factory.
Authorized Agent: Peng, lawyer of Shaanxi Law Firm.
Authorized Agent: Zhigang Cheng, lawyer of Shaanxi Huayi Law Firm.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): People's Government of xiaodian district, Taiyuan, and its domicile is xiaodian district, Taiyuan.
Legal Representative: Liu Suiji, district head.
Authorized Agent: Bai Quanlin, director of xiaodian district Land Administration Bureau of Taiyuan City.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Land Administration Bureau of xiaodian district City, Taiyuan City, with its domicile in xiaodian district City, Taiyuan City.
Legal Representative: Wang Gaixin, director of the Bureau.
Authorized Agent: Wang Yonghe, lawyer of Sanjin Law Firm.
Appellee (the third person in the original trial): villagers' committee of Qinxian Village, Pingyang Road Street, xiaodian district City, Taiyuan City.
Legal Representative: Shi, director of the village committee.
Authorized Agent: Zhang, lawyer of Sanjin Law Firm.
The appellant Taiyuan New Boiler Auxiliary Factory (hereinafter referred to as the new boiler factory) appealed to our court for refusing to accept the case that the Taiyuan Intermediate People's Court (200 1) issued the land use certificate by the xiaodian district People's Government of Taiyuan City (hereinafter referred to as the xiaodian district Municipal Government) and the xiaodian district Land Administration Bureau of Taiyuan City (hereinafter referred to as the xiaodian district Land Administration Bureau) gave evidence. Our hospital formed a collegiate bench according to law, and heard the case in public on September 1 2006. The legal representative of the Appellant's new boiler plant, its entrusted agent Peng and Bai Quanlin, the entrusted agent of the Appellee's xiaodian district Municipal Government, the entrusted agent of the Appellee's xiaodian district Land and Resources Bureau, and the entrusted agent of the Appellee's Qinxian Village Committee (hereinafter referred to as Qinxian Village Committee) in Pingyang Road, xiaodian district City, Taiyuan City, attended the proceedings in court. The case has now been closed.
The appellee xiaodian district Municipal Government and xiaodian district Land and Resources Bureau provided the following main evidences to the court of first instance:
1. collective construction land use certificate (99 words No.008) and certification materials;
2. Certification materials issued by xiaodian district Land and Resources Bureau on October 20th, 2000/KLOC-0 (165438);
3.1August 988 17 Lease Contract signed by Xinxin Boiler Factory and Qinxian Village Committee;
4. xiaodian district People's Court (2000) MinchuziNo. 945th, etc.
The main evidences provided by the appellant's new boiler factory are:
5. Report on Applying for Land Use Certificate (Parallel (2000)No. 17) of Taiyuan Federation of Industry and Commerce;
6, the new boiler factory "measurement" receipt;
7. 1985 1 1 The order contract between the newly-built boiler plant and Yangquan Distillery;
8. March order contract between new boiler plant and Fenxi Machinery Plant, 1986, etc.
The appellant New Boiler Factory thinks that the above-mentioned No.3 lease contract is illegal, but it can't provide a basis to confirm that the contract is illegal, so this objection can't be established. Appellee believes that Evidence 5-8 cannot prove that the appellant's newly-built boiler plant has the legal right to use the disputed land. In our court's view, Evidence 5 and Evidence 6 are acts after the administrative act of which the case is accused, and they are not within the scope of this case. There is no evidence. 7-8 is the evidence of economic exchanges between enterprises, which cannot show that the appellant's new factory has permanent legal right to use the disputed land. After cross-examination in court, both parties have no objection to the authenticity of the above evidence, which can be used as the basis for determining the facts of this case.
Based on the above evidence, our court finds the following facts:
1On August 7th, 1988, the Appellant's new boiler plant signed a Lease Contract with the Appellee's Qinxian Village Committee, stipulating that the Appellee's Qinxian Village Committee agreed to lease all its factory land, factories, equipment and other fixed assets to the Appellant's new boiler plant for use. The lease term was1August 6th, 1988 to1October 20th. 1July 2, 999, the appellee xiaodian district government issued the Certificate for the Use of Collective Construction Land with Qinxian Village Factory in xiaodian district, Taiyuan as the auxiliary boiler factory. 65438+1October 28th, June 28th, 2000, the appellee Qinxian Village Committee filed a civil lawsuit with the People's Court of xiaodian district, Taiyuan, because the appellant's new boiler factory failed to return the leased house and property after the expiration of the contract. During the first trial, the appellee xiaodian district Land and Resources Bureau issued a Certificate to the court of first instance according to the court investigation, which proved that the land user, the nature of the land and the four directions of litigation in this case were all proved according to the collective land construction land use certificate sued in this case, which was consistent with the contents registered in the certificate. The appellant Xin Boiler Factory believed that the certificate of the appellee xiaodian district government and the "Proof Materials" of xiaodian district Land and Resources Bureau infringed upon his legitimate rights and interests, so he appealed to the people's court.
While finding out the above facts, the court of first instance held that the land used by the appellant's new boiler plant was obtained through the lease contract signed with the appellee's pro-xian village committee, and the certificate of the appellee's xiaodian district government and the "Certification Materials" of the appellee's xiaodian district Land and Resources Bureau would not affect the land use right obtained by the appellant's new boiler plant from the appellee's pro-xian village committee, so the plaintiff had no right to question or claim the ownership of the land. The appellant's new boiler plant does not have the plaintiff's main qualification, and according to the provisions of Item (2) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the appellant ruled that the prosecution was dismissed.
The appellant's new boiler plant appealed that the first instance ruled that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and it was wrong to determine that the appellant's new boiler plant did not have the main qualification. The land location registered in the Certificate for the Use of Collective Construction Land (No.008, 99 words) issued by the xiaodian district Municipal Government of the Appellee is completely consistent with the current site of the Appellant's newly-built boiler plant, and all the Appellant's factories and equipment are located in the site. Therefore, the issuing behavior infringed the property right of the appellant's newly-built boiler plant, and the appellant had the plaintiff's main qualification. In this case, the land users registered on the collective construction land use right certificate are fictitious, and the nature of the registered land should be state-owned land rather than collective land, so registration is an illegal administrative act. The "supporting materials" provided by the appellant xiaodian district Land and Resources Bureau are perjury and invalid administrative acts.
We believe that the land occupied by the appellant's new boiler plant was obtained through the lease contract signed with the appellee's pro-xian village Committee at 1988. When signing the contract, whether the appellee's pro-xian village committee has obtained the land use certificate does not affect the establishment of the lease relationship between the two parties. Before the expiration of the lease contract, the appellee xiaodian district government issued a land use certificate for others for the workshop leased by the appellant's new boiler factory, but the issuing behavior did not affect the appellant's new boiler factory to exercise the lease right of the workshop. After the expiration of the lease term, the appellant's new boiler plant did not continue to sign the contract with the original lessor, and the land use right obtained by the appellant's new boiler plant based on the original lease contract has been eliminated. Therefore, there is no legal interest between the appellant's new boiler plant and the appellee's xiaodian district government in the certification of the disputed land in this case. The Appellee xiaodian district Bureau of Land and Resources issued the Certificate to the people's court, which is based on the defendant's land use certificate in this case, consistent with the content of the land use certificate, and has no influence on the rights and obligations of the Appellee's new boiler plant, so there is no legal interest between the Appellee's new boiler plant and the Appellee xiaodian district Government's Certificate. Article 12 of the Supreme People's Court's Several Interpretations stipulates: "Citizens, legal persons or other organizations that have a legitimate interest in a specific administrative act may bring an administrative lawsuit according to law if they are dissatisfied with the act." Because the appellant's new boiler factory has no legal interest in the specific administrative act prosecuted in this case, it does not have the plaintiff's qualification as the litigation subject. The appellant, Xin Boiler Factory, thinks that it has the plaintiff's litigation subject qualification and other appeal reasons cannot be established, and our court does not support it. The court of first instance decided to reject the appellant's lawsuit against the new boiler plant, and found that the facts were clear, the applicable law was correct and the procedure was legal, which should be maintained.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 12, Article 44, Paragraph 1 (2) and Article 97 of the Supreme People's Court's Implementation Opinions, and with reference to Article 188 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
The legal cost of this case is 100 yuan, which shall be borne by the appellant's new boiler plant.
This is the final verdict.