Guangdong Meizhou: no land requisition approval to forcibly dig land?Court: Illegal!Order a remedy and compensation
Land is collected commonly, should compensate farmer land compensation fee, find a place for subsidy fee, ground thing green seedling compensation fee, give insurance to lose land farmer even, and, social security cost is listed separately, won’t deduct from afore-mentioned 3 kinds of compensation.The case we share today involves that farmers were forced to push their contracted land without signing an agreement on compensation and resettlement, and the land was later enclosed. What is more prominent is that the land was not approved for expropriation.Take a look at how these farmers are defending their rights.I. Basic information of the case Due to the introduction of a large-scale real estate project, the local government needs to occupy the contracted land of the plaintiff and other farmers.The compensation standard given by the local town government is the remaining contract life multiplied by 1000 yuan/mu, and the remaining contract life of most farmers is basically about 10 years, that is to say, the compensation for one mu of land is about 10,000 yuan.This standard is seriously lower than the national land expropriation standard, therefore, the plaintiff and other farmers cannot accept.In addition, the compensation for the ground attachments was not evaluated, nor did it distinguish the types, but was based on the same standard, which was unacceptable to the plaintiff and other farmers.But as the project start date is approaching, the town government forced, forced to dig the farmers’ land, and the contracted land for the enclosure, for the construction party to enter the construction.Second, apply for information disclosure that case involved land without approval of the plaintiff land expropriation, etc to understand relevant situation of land expropriation, farmers to government departments to apply for the government information publicity, through information reply, has not won the provincial government to make the case involved the contracted land expropriation approval document, there is the problem of the first batch of “not serious illegal.After obtaining the key information, the plaintiff and other farmers sued the defendant town government to the court. Iii. The court determined that the strong implementation was illegal and ordered the defendant to take measures to remedy mistakes and compensate for losses.Through the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it can be seen that the land involved in the case did not obtain the documents of approval for expropriation. Although the defendant denied it, he did not submit evidence to prove that the land involved in the case had been expropriated until the judgment of the case was made.Therefore, in view of the problem of “pre-occupation without approval”, the defendant should take remedial measures to the plaintiff in time.2. According to China’s Administrative enforcement Law, administrative organs without administrative enforcement power should apply to the people’s court for enforcement.Very apparent, defendant town government has no right to carry out strong push, strong dig the legal authority of plaintiff contract ground.Moreover, the defendant town government did not make an administrative decision, did not guarantee the plaintiff’s right of representation and defense, did not urge the plaintiff, and did not make a public announcement before carrying out the sued administrative act, which seriously violated the procedure.3. The plaintiff’s planting on the land contracted by the plaintiff does not violate the provisions of the law. Since there is no notice of land acquisition, therefore, the defendant has no basis to claim that the plaintiff has robbed the planting and shall not support it.The defendant’s forcible pushing or digging has infringed upon the plaintiff’s lawful property rights and interests, and shall be compensated.To sum up, the court makes the following judgment: 1. Confirm that the defendant’s compulsory cleaning of the above-ground attachments of the land contracted by the plaintiff is illegal; 2.2. The defendant takes remedial measures against the occupation of the contracted land by the plaintiff without obtaining the land acquisition approval;3. Within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment, the defendant shall fully compensate the above-ground attachments of the contracted land contracted by the plaintiff according to law.”Before the approval of occupation”, “rent instead of expropriation” and other situations often appear in land expropriation cases, the majority of farmers should learn to distinguish whether the behavior of land expropriation is legal.Consult a professional attorney if you encounter a similar situation.After all, the legal relations involved in land expropriation and demolition are complicated and there are many procedures. Therefore, grasping the opportunity of safeguarding rights is crucial to the success of safeguarding rights.