Blog

After more than 20 years of building a house in Guangzhou, he was posthumously recognized for illegal construction and forced demolition, and the court ruled that forced demolition was illegal

Wen Hanliang, who is over 60 years old, did not expect that the house he bought and built more than 20 years ago would be considered illegal and be forcibly demolished.After more than 20 years of building a house in Guangzhou, he was posthumously recognized for illegal construction and forced demolition, and the court ruled that forced demolition was illegal -After-more-than-20-years-of-building-a-house-in

The three-and-a-half-story building built by Wen Hanliang and others was later found to be illegal and was forcibly demolished.The pictures in this article are provided by the respondents

Wen Hanliang and his relatives purchased 1.02 mu of land from Yongping Village, Baiyun District, Guangzhou City in 1993, and later built a three-and-a-half-story building with a total area of ​​nearly 2,000 square meters, and were issued the “Rural (Market Town) Homestead Use” certificate”. After that, Wen Hanliang and others used the house as a warehouse and rented it out. In November 2020, the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources issued an “Administrative Handling Decision” to Wen Hanliang and other four people. ) Homestead Use Certificate. In December of the same year, the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau issued a “Notice of Ordering Correction within a Time Limit” to Wen Hanliang and other four people, asking them to stop the illegal behavior and demolish the building involved within a time limit. In March 2021, the house was forcibly demolished by Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau and Yongping Sub-district Office.

CIC (www.thepaper.cn) learned from an interview that an important reason why the house was found to be illegal construction was that Wen Hanliang and the other four were not villagers in Dongping Village. According to the relevant provisions of the Regulations, Wen Hanliang and other four non-Dongping villagers did not meet the statutory conditions for applying for the use of homesteads.

Since then, Wen Hanliang and others have started a long “litigation tug of war” with the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources, the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau, and the Yongping Sub-district Office. Wen Hanliang and others sued and requested the court to revoke the “certificate withdrawal” decision, which was rejected by the first and second instance courts, and requested the court to revoke the “Decision on Administrative Handling of Illegal Construction” issued by the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau. The first and second instance courts both supported Wen Hanliang’s appeal. . In May 2022, the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Court made a first-instance verdict: the forced demolition by the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau and Yongping Sub-district Office was illegal, and the two should compensate Wen Hanliang and other four people for a total of about 3.77 million yuan.

Wen Hanliang and other four people believed that the compensation amount was too low and appealed. CIC learned that after the first-instance judgment was pronounced, in addition to the plaintiff Wen Hanliang and other four people, the two defendants, Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau and Yongping Sub-district Office, also appealed.

Buying land to build a house was identified as illegal construction

Wen Hanliang, born in 1958, is from Jieyang, Guangdong, and came to Guangzhou to develop in the 1980s. Wen Hanliang said that when he was in the grain and oil business and made some money, he wanted to build a warehouse to store grain and oil.After more than 20 years of building a house in Guangzhou, he was posthumously recognized for illegal construction and forced demolition, and the court ruled that forced demolition was illegal -1655423770_952_After-more-than-20-years-of-building-a-house-in

In 1993, Wen Hanliang and others bought 1.02 mu of homestead in Yongping Village for 204,000 yuan.

In December 1993, Wen Hanliang and others signed the “Agreement on the Transfer of Homestead Use” with Dongping Village, Tonghe Town, Baiyun District, Guangzhou City (Note: Dongping Village was later under the jurisdiction of Yongping Street). The agreement shows that Yongping Village transferred 1.02 mu of homestead to Wen Hanliang and others at a price of 200,000 yuan per mu, and Wen Hanliang and others paid a one-time transfer fee of 204,000 yuan; , the homestead belongs to Wen Hanliang and others for permanent use.

Relevant materials show that in December 1993, Wen Hanliang filled out the “House Construction Application Form for Villagers in Dongping Village, Tonghe Town, Baiyun District” to apply for building a house. Tonghe Town Land Planning and Management Office issued the opinion of “Agreeing with the opinion of the village committee” on the application form and affixed its seal. Wen Hanliang’s relatives also submitted applications to build houses on the above site, and Dongping Village Committee and Tonghe Town Land Planning and Management Office of Baiyun District also issued their approval opinions. Afterwards, Wen Hanliang, Wu Honghua, Wen Honghai, and Wan Fuyun jointly built a three-story semi-frame structure building.

On October 13, 1995, the original Tonghe Town Government of Baiyun District issued the “Rural (Market Town) Homestead Use Certificate” to Wen Hanliang and other four persons.After more than 20 years of building a house in Guangzhou, he was posthumously recognized for illegal construction and forced demolition, and the court ruled that forced demolition was illegal -1655423771_298_After-more-than-20-years-of-building-a-house-in

In October 1995, Wen Hanliang and other four persons obtained the “Rural (Market Town) Homestead Use Certificate” issued by the local town government

Wen Hanliang recalled to CIC that after he bought the homestead, he went through the construction application procedures. At that time, he reported the construction in the name of 8 people, and then only 4 “certificates” were issued. In addition to himself, the other three were his wife Wu Honghua. , his son Wen Honghai, and his son’s godfather Wan Fuyun. After that, the four of them built a house together. In 1994, the three-and-a-half-story building was completed, covering an area of ​​600 square meters and a total area of ​​nearly 2,000 square meters. After the house was built, it was used as a warehouse at first, and then it was rented out. The monthly rent rose from tens of thousands of yuan to 40,000 to 50,000 yuan.

According to Wen Hanliang, around 2004, a plot of land near Yongping Village was sold to a real estate company, where a villa was to be built. At that time, the developer sent someone to talk to them about the demolition, but due to the poor sales of the villas, the project disappeared. After that, another real estate company took over and built the whole row of villas. I also talked to them about compensation for demolition, but there was no result.

To Wen Hanliang’s surprise, 26 years after the house was built, it was found to be illegal. In November 2020, the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources sent a letter to Wen Hanliang and other four people, informing that the building involved was initially judged as an illegal construction that could not take corrective measures to eliminate the impact on the implementation of the plan, and requested the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau to file a case for handling. Afterwards, the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources issued an “Administrative Handling Decision” respectively, arguing that the four persons did not meet the statutory conditions for applying for the use of homesteads and did not have the qualifications to apply, and decided to revoke the “Rural (Market Town) Households” held by the four persons. Base Use Certificate. In December of the same year, the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau issued a “Notice of Ordering Correction within a Time Limit” to Wen Hanliang and other four people, asking them to stop their illegal activities and dismantle them by themselves within a time limit.

Court: Support “revocation”, but the reliance interests of the holder should be protected

Peng Mei News noticed that the “Notice” issued by the Baiyun District Bureau of the Guangzhou Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau in November 2020 showed that according to Article 35 of the “Guangzhou Land Management Regulations”: “The following persons can apply for the use of residential buildings. Base: (1) Villagers with permanent household registration in the village; (2) Villagers from the original village who have returned to the village after divorce and their children raised by them; (3) Workers, demobilized veterans and retired retired cadres who have returned to their original places of residence; (4) Overseas Chinese and compatriots from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan who have returned to their hometowns to settle down.” It was found out by Yongping Street that Wen Hanliang and others did not meet the statutory conditions for applying for the use of rural homesteads, and they were suspected of illegally applying for a rural homestead use permit. It is hereby proposed to revoke the “Rural (Market Town) Homestead Use Certificate”.After more than 20 years of building a house in Guangzhou, he was posthumously recognized for illegal construction and forced demolition, and the court ruled that forced demolition was illegal -1655423772_231_After-more-than-20-years-of-building-a-house-in

In November 2020, the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources revoked the homestead use permits of Wen Hanliang and others.

Wen Hanliang said that they are indeed not villagers of Yongping Village, but they did not prohibit non-local villagers from buying land when they bought the land. Later, in the newspaper, I read that Guangzhou had issued “new regulations”, that is, when non-local villagers could not buy rural homesteads, they also I feel lucky to “start early”. In addition, they applied for construction according to formal procedures and obtained the “Rural (Market Town) Homestead Use Certificate” issued by the local town government. Based on this, they believed that the house was not illegally built, and the decision to “revoke the license” made by the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources was unreasonable.

In December 2020, Wen Hanliang and four others sued the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources, requesting the court to revoke the “Administrative Handling Decision” issued by the bureau. In May 2021, the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Court made a first-instance judgment on the case. According to the judgment, Wen Hanliang and others stated that the “Guangzhou Land Management Regulations” were implemented on March 1, 1995 and abolished on November 15, 2000. The administrative penalty decision made in 2020 was based on local regulations that were abolished 20 years ago. It is an error in the application of law and shall not be used as the basis for administrative punishment.

The Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources argued that the homestead use permit was issued in October 1995, and the legal effect continued until it was revoked. According to the laws and regulations in force when the “Homestead Use Certificate” was issued, the Bureau made a “Letter of Handling Decision” to correct the administrative violations with continuous legal effect, and the applicable laws and regulations were correct.

The Guangzhou Railway Transportation Court held in the first instance that, according to the first paragraph of Article 35 of the “Guangzhou Land Administration Regulations”, Wen Hanliang and others were not the subjects who could apply for the use of rural homesteads as determined by the above-mentioned provisions, and they did not have the ability to apply for the use of homesteads. Qualifications, his obtaining the “Rural (Market Town) Homestead Use Certificate” involved in the case does not meet the above requirements.

The court held that the legality of an administrative act should be judged on the basis of the legal provisions that took effect at the time of the administrative act, and that the administrative act of the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources was not improperly applied. Accordingly, the court rejected the claims of Wen Hanliang and other four persons.

Wen Hanliang and the other four refused to accept the first-instance judgment and appealed.

The second instance of the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Intermediate Court also held that the “Guangzhou Land Management Regulations” were valid regulations at the time of issuance of the certificate and were applicable to this case. Wen Hanliang and others were not villagers of the village when they purchased the homestead involved in the case from the Dongping Village Committee in December 1993. When they obtained the license for the use of the homestead involved in the case in October 1995, they did not meet the main conditions for applying for the use of the homestead in the village as stipulated in relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, it is a mistake to issue the “Rural (Market Town) Homestead Use Certificate” to him. In December 2021, the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Intermediate Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.

It is worth mentioning that the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Intermediate Court specifically pointed out that the application by Wen Hanliang and others to build the house on the homestead involved in the case was approved by the village committee and the town land planning and management office. In October 1995, the license for the use of the homestead involved was obtained, and it has been used continuously for many years. Therefore, Wen Hanliang and others still have trust interests that should be protected. The original Tonghe Township Government of Baiyun District issued Wen Hanliang and others a license for the use of the homestead involved in the case under the condition that Wen Hanliang and others did not meet the conditions for using the homestead as stipulated in the law. If the base use permit is revoked and its legal rights and interests are damaged, it shall bear corresponding legal responsibility. The relevant legitimate rights and interests of Wen Hanliang and others can be combined with the subsequent disposal of the homestead house involved in the case, and other legal means can be used for relief.

The demolition decision made by the district urban management bureau was revoked by the court

On February 4, 2021, the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau posted the “Decision on Administrative Handling of Illegal Construction” and the “Announcement on Demolition of Illegal Construction within a Time Limit”, requiring Wen Hanliang to demolish the house within three days from the date of delivery of the decision. The District Urban Management Bureau will organize the forced demolition after reporting to the Baiyun District Government for approval.

Wen Hanliang refused to accept the above decision and sued the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau.

It is worth noting that on March 31, 2021, despite the opposition of Wen Hanliang and others, the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau forcibly demolished the above-mentioned houses.

In July of the same year, the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Court made a first-instance judgment on the case, revoking the above-mentioned “Decision on Administrative Handling of Illegal Construction”.

The court held that the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau’s determination of the facts was unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and its decision to deal with the case should be revoked in accordance with the law.

Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau appealed against the first-instance judgment. In January 2022, the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Intermediate Court held the second instance that the houses involved in the case belonged to a certified situation (four homestead certificates). For a building that has been issued a property right certificate, it is generally not appropriate to consider illegal construction on the grounds that it has not been approved for planning, unless it is determined to be an error in issuing the certificate without legal procedures and has been revoked. Wen Hanliang obtained the license for the use of the homestead involved in the case and has continued to use it for many years, so he has trust interests that should be protected. Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau neither considered the fact that the administrative decision to revoke the use permit of the homestead involved in the case was still pending, nor did it consider that Wen Hanliang’s reliance interest should be compensated, that is, the decision was made on the grounds that the building involved had not obtained planning permission. There is nothing wrong with the fact that the factual basis is not sufficient and the handling is improper.

The second instance of Guangzhou Railway Transportation Intermediate Court held that the housing site certificate of the house involved was illegally and erroneously issued and had been revoked by the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources. Therefore, after the homestead certificate involved was revoked, the house involved in the case built on the homestead had no legal basis and could be deemed to be illegal construction, but Wen Hanliang had reliance interests that should be protected. In view of the fact that the houses involved in the case have been forcibly demolished, the relevant administrative organs should properly resolve Wen Hanliang’s reliance interest compensation issue in accordance with the determination of the relevant effective judgment, so as to reduce the burden of litigation. Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau’s claim that the building involved does not have reliance interests and other grounds for appeal, lacking factual and legal basis, is not accepted. To sum up, the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Intermediate Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.

The court found that the forced demolition was illegal and awarded a compensation of 3.77 million, both parties appealed

Regarding the forced demolition of the house, Wen Hanliang and others believed that the government department directly implemented the forced demolition without waiting for the court’s judgment, which seriously violated legal procedures. Moreover, both the court of first instance and the court of second instance revoked the Decision on Administrative Handling of Illegal Construction, and there was no factual and legal basis for the forced demolition.After more than 20 years of building a house in Guangzhou, he was posthumously recognized for illegal construction and forced demolition, and the court ruled that forced demolition was illegal -1655423772_86_After-more-than-20-years-of-building-a-house-in

Wen Hanliang once entrusted a third-party company to evaluate the value of the house involved, and the appraised value was about 33.56 million yuan.

On December 2, 2020, Wen Hanliang and others entrusted Guangzhou Suiheng Real Estate Land Assets Evaluation Consulting Co., Ltd. to evaluate the compensation value for the expropriation of the house. After evaluation, the compensation value for the expropriation of the house involved was 33,561,670 yuan.

As a result, Wen Hanliang and the other four sued the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau and the Yongping Sub-district Office, requesting the court to order the forced demolition to be illegal, and claim a total of about 33.56 million yuan.

The case was heard by the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Court. The court of first instance held that, according to relevant regulations, the administrative enforcement agency should perform procedures such as urging and making compulsory enforcement decisions before implementing the compulsory demolition. procedures and the protection of the counterparty’s right to make a statement and defense, and the forced demolition was not reported to the district people’s government for approval in accordance with regulations, which violated legal procedures. In view of the fact that the forced demolition in this case has no revocable content, it should be confirmed that the act is illegal.After more than 20 years of building a house in Guangzhou, he was posthumously recognized for illegal construction and forced demolition, and the court ruled that forced demolition was illegal -1655423772_937_After-more-than-20-years-of-building-a-house-in

In December 2020, a “Meeting Minutes” of Yongping Sub-district Office showed that in order to solve the problems left over from history, after the meeting, it was necessary to compensate Wen Hanliang and others for their houses demolition and relocation.

Regarding the issue of whether Wen Hanliang and others should receive corresponding compensation, the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Court held that the houses involved were illegally constructed, but Wen Hanliang and others had corresponding legitimate rights and interests that should be protected. Although the homestead certificate involved in the case was revoked due to illegal issuance, it should also be taken into account that Wen Hanliang and others signed the “Transfer Homestead Use Agreement” with Dongping Village Committee at that time, stipulating that the homestead would be transferred and paid a consideration of 204,000 yuan to purchase the homestead for use. During the construction of the house involved, he did not conceal his non-village identity, and the Tonghe Town People’s Government also issued him a homestead certificate for the case involved. In addition, the Baiyun Urban Management Bureau’s decision to determine that the house involved was an illegal construction was also revoked. The Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau and Yongping Sub-district Office forcibly demolished the house involved, causing damage to the above rights and interests of Wen Hanliang and others, and should be compensated.

The Guangzhou Railway Transportation Court stated that the first instance held that although this case did not belong to administrative expropriation and compensation, it could refer to the provisions of Article 29 of the “Regulations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases” to make Wen Hanliang and others eligible for demolition compensation. The amount was determined to be the direct loss of the Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau and Yongping Sub-district Office for illegal and compulsory demolishing of the houses involved. After calculation, the court determined that the two defendants should compensate Wen Hanliang, Wen Honghai, Wu Honghua, Wan Fuyun and other four persons in the amount of 1313515.61 yuan, 814500.27 yuan, 759852.18 yuan and 884811.84 yuan respectively, totaling about 3.77 million yuan.

Wen Hanliang told CIC that they did not believe that their house was illegally constructed. The compensation amount supported by the above-mentioned court was too low, and the house prices around the demolished house were already 50,000 to 61,000 yuan. The four of them have appealed. Peng Mei News learned that after the first-instance verdict of the case, in addition to the plaintiff Wen Hanliang and other four people, the two defendants, Baiyun District Urban Management Bureau and Yongping Sub-district Office, have appealed.

Previously, the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Intermediate Court upheld the decision of the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Planning and Natural Resources to “revoke the certificate” of the house involved in the second instance. Dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment, Wen Hanliang and other four people have applied to the Guangdong Provincial High Court for retrial. On June 7, 2022, the Guangdong Provincial High Court has accepted the case.

(This article is from CIC, for more original information, please download the “CIC” APP)

Charity In China report

Paypal account: fund@charityinchina.cn

Follow facebook page:Charity In China

Support Alipay/支付宝 To Donate

Scan Alipay QR Code


Support Paypal To Donate
PAYPAL DONATION

Thank you!
And we also accept the donation of Bitcoin.

Our Bitcoin address : 16ih3dGgfNf3TtrwgKzMnYbtixrQqEFk14

Scan QR Code

Thank you for your love