[Case Summary]This case is an administrative lawsuit confirming the illegality of the forced demolition. In 1988, the plaintiff, Liu Dashan, responded to the government's call and contracted about 160 mu of land in a certain Shuguang Village in Inner Mongolia, built 16 fish ponds and guardhouses, and obtained the "Water and Beach Cultivation Use Certificate" to operate legally. However, the A Town Government issued a "Notice of Ordering Demolition within a Time Limit" on August 30, 2024, and made an "Administrative Punishment Decision" on September 19, on the grounds that the construction did not comply with the rural construction plan. On October 24, the government forcibly demolished the facilities, causing damage to the production facilities. Liu Dashan entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer requested the court to confirm that the forced demolition was illegal. The court found that the forced demolition process was seriously illegal, lacked sufficient factual basis, and did not exceed the statute of limitations. According to Article 74 Paragraph 2 Item 1 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the demolition was confirmed to be illegal, and the case acceptance fee was borne by the town government. The core disputes were the legality of the forced demolition process and the determination of the historical building facts. Applicable laws: Articles 35 to 37 and Article 44 of the Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 47 of the Land Administration Law, and Article 74 of the Administrative Procedure Law.

I. Review of the case

The fish ponds of a farmer covering an area of 100 mu were forcibly demolished. When seeking justice, people searched for terms like "how to confirm the illegality of the forced demolition of fish ponds", "how to report the illegal demolition procedures of the town government", and "is there compensation for the forced demolition of historical aquaculture facilities". This case is highly referential. The plaintiff, Liu Dashan, is a villager of Shuguang Village in a certain autonomous region. In 1988, he responded to the government's call and contracted about 160 mu of land in A Town through the township government, investing in the construction of 16 fish ponds, guardhouses, and feed storage rooms. The project was a poverty alleviation project of the United Nations World Food Programme, and he legally obtained the "Water and Beach Aquaculture Use Certificate". He has been operating legally until now, and the fish ponds are his source of production and livelihood.

The town government of A Town believes that Liu Dashan failed to build in accordance with the rural construction planning permit, violating Article 65 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law. On August 30, 2024, it issued a "Notice of Ordering Demolition within a Limited Time" requiring him to demolish the building within seven days. However, Liu Dashan failed to do so. On September 19, the town government issued an "Administrative Punishment Decision" ordering the demolition, and on October 24, it organized the forced demolition, resulting in the damage of production facilities and the loss of property. The defendant argued that the contract expired in 2016, the building was identified as illegal by the environmental supervision, the procedures had been followed, and there was no right to compensation for collective land. The lawsuit exceeded the six-month statute of limitations. Liu Dashan entrusted someone to handle the case for him.Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit, requesting that the court confirm that the forced demolition was illegal and that the defendant should bear the litigation costs.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the forced demolition process is legal.Is it a serious procedural violation to fail to send an effective notice of default, fail to review the defendant's defense, fail to make a legally valid decision on forced execution, and demolish the building before the relief period expires?
  • Focus II: Is there any factual basis for the forced demolition?The defendant only identified the illegal construction based on internal documents and did not consider the historical background. Is the evidence sufficient?
  • Focus Three: Whether the lawsuit exceeds the statute of limitations.The notice of limited demolition fails to inform the right to sue, so how should the time limit for filing a lawsuit be calculated?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (Liu Dashan) claimed that:The fish pond is legally contracted and operated, and has obtained a farming use certificate. Before the forced demolition, the government failed to go through the statutory expropriation procedures and did not guarantee the right to relief. Therefore, we request that the forced demolition be confirmed as illegal.

The defendant (A Town Government) argued that:The demolition is based on factual legal grounds and follows legal procedures. The contract with the contractor has expired, and the building has been identified as an illegal construction by the relevant department. A notice of filing a lawsuit and a decision on issuing a reminder have been announced. The land is collectively owned, and the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation. The lawsuit should be dismissed as it exceeds the six-month statute of limitations.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer pointed out that:

  • The plaintiff legally obtained the right to operate the fish pond and obtained the "Certificate of Use for Aquatic and Beach Area Cultivation", and the building complies with the land use and project planning
  • The forced demolition process is seriously illegal: According to Article 47 of the Land Management Law, the expropriation of collective land requires completing legal procedures such as pre-announcement, status quo investigation, risk assessment, and publicizing the compensation and resettlement plan. The defendant failed to fulfill these procedures before carrying out the forced demolition. According to Articles 35 to 37 and Article 44 of the Administrative Enforcement Law, the defendant only served a notice of forced demolition, failed to give effective notice, failed to review the defendant's defense, failed to make a legitimate and effective decision on enforcement, and carried out the forced demolition before the relief period expired
  • The forced demolition lacks factual basis: the defendant only identified the illegal construction based on internal government documents, without considering the historical background that the building was constructed before the approval system was perfected
  • According to Article 74 Paragraph 2 Item 1 of the Administrative Procedure Law, if the act is illegal but there is no content requiring its revocation, it shall be confirmed as illegal

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that: The forced demolition procedure was seriously illegal - the defendant failed to strictly comply with the procedures stipulated in the Administrative Enforcement Law, including making a decision, issuing a notice, guaranteeing the right to make statements and defenses, delivering and announcing the decision on forced execution, and waiting for the expiration of the relief period, and carried out the forced demolition before the statutory relief period expired; the factual basis was insufficient - the plaintiff's "Water and Shoreline Cultivation Use Certificate" proved that he had legally contracted and operated the business, and the defendant's documents were insufficient to fully prove the illegal construction and failed to consider the objective historical circumstances; the statute of limitations - there was insufficient evidence to prove that the punishment decision was invalidly served, and the demolition notice failed to inform the plaintiff of the right to sue. The plaintiff's lawsuit filed on May 30, 2025 did not exceed the statute of limitations. According to Article 74 Paragraph 2 Item 1 of the Administrative Litigation Law, the court ruled that the demolition of the above-mentioned buildings by the A Town Government was illegal, and the case acceptance fee shall be borne by the A Town People's Government.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

The administrative authorities must strictly follow legal procedures and factual basis when conducting forced demolitions, and the historical breeding facilities should be considered in the light of their construction background. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202311629788, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acted on behalf of the client. The lawyer accurately pointed out the key points of the procedural violations and successfully confirmed the illegality of the forced demolition, clearing the obstacles for the client to claim compensation in the future.

VI. Common Questions and FAQs about Protecting Rights Against Forced Demolition of Fish Ponds

  1. Q: How to confirm that the forced demolition of the fish pond is illegal?
    A:An administrative lawsuit can be filed to claim that the forced demolition failed to comply with statutory procedures such as filing a case, issuing a notice, guaranteeing the right to defense, delivering the decision on forced execution, and waiting for the expiration of the relief period. The plaintiff requests that the forced demolition be confirmed as illegal in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Law.
  2. Q: How to report the illegal demolition by the town government?
    A:Collect evidence such as demolition notices, videos of forced demolitions, and breeding use permits to prove that the right to seek remedies was not informed to the affected parties, and that the demolition took place before the remedial period ended. The court may determine that the demolition process was seriously illegal.
  3. Q: Is it still considered illegal construction if one has a breeding and farming permit?
    A:For those who have obtained the "Certificate of Use of Aquatic and Beach Areas for Aquaculture" in accordance with the law and operate legally, the buildings have a reasonable historical background, and there is insufficient evidence to determine them as illegal constructions solely based on internal documents.
  4. Q: Can I still request compensation after the forced demolition?
    A:Confirming that the forced demolition is illegal is a prerequisite for subsequently claiming administrative compensation, and this case has laid a foundation for the party concerned to protect their rights.
  5. Q: The demolition notice doesn't specify how to calculate the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit.
    A:Where the right to sue and the time limit for suing are not informed, the time limit for suing shall be calculated from the date when the party knows that the building has been demolished, and the maximum period shall not exceed one year.