[Case Summary]This case involves a contract dispute over the relocation compensation and resettlement agreement. In 2022, A Mining Company, Liu Zhigang, the village committee, and the relocation office signed the "Agricultural and Pastoral Residents Relocation Compensation and Resettlement Agreement for the Collapsed Area of the Mining Area". After A Mining Company paid all the compensation, it believed that Liu Zhigang's new house violated the contract and filed a civil lawsuit in 2025 to demand the demolition of the new house and the removal of Liu Zhigang. Liu Zhigang entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.文品良The lawyer represented the client, defined the nature of the agreement, clarified the boundaries between administrative and civil matters, pointed out that the plaintiff did not have the right to enforce administrative laws, and the court rejected all of A Mining Company's litigation claims. The core disputes include: whether the agreement is an administrative or civil agreement, whether the plaintiff can exercise administrative enforcement rights according to the contract, and the provisions on breach of contract liability. Applicable legal provisions: Articles 509 and 577 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, Article 62 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 64 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China.

I. Review of the Case Facts

After signing the relocation compensation agreement, the other party came to demolish the house again. How to distinguish the administrative and civil boundaries is a difficult point in the dispute over the relocation agreement. On May 7, 2022, A Mining Co., Ltd. (Party A), Liu Zhigang (Party B), C Village Committee (Party C), and D Town Relocation Office (Party D) signed the "D Town Mining Area Collapse Zone Farmers and Herdsmen Relocation Compensation and Resettlement Agreement", which stipulated that A Mining Co. would pay 60% of the compensation within 30 days, and Liu Zhigang would demolish the house and move out within 60 days, otherwise the remaining balance would be withheld; and the remaining 40% would be paid within 30 days after the relocation. Article 6 of the agreement also stipulated that after the relocation, the parties would not engage in agricultural and livestock production. On May 31, 2022, A Mining Co. paid 60% of the total amount, which was 13,038,330.15 yuan. Liu Zhigang demolished the original house in July 2023, and A Mining Co. paid the remaining balance of 8568669.84 yuan in August and September. Later, A Mining Co. considered that Liu Zhigang had breached the contract by building a new house, and sued in May 2025 to require the demolition of the new house and the removal of the house, and to have the defendant bear the litigation costs. Liu Zhigang entrusted a lawyer to defend himself. 签了搬迁补偿协议后，对方又来拆房，行政民事边界怎么分，是涉拆迁协议纠纷的难点。2022年5月7日，A矿业有限公司（甲方）、刘志刚（乙方）、C村委会（丙方）、D镇搬迁办（丁方）四方签《D镇矿区塌陷区农牧民搬迁补偿安置协议》，约定A矿业30日内付60%补偿款，刘志刚60日内自行拆房搬离，否则拒付余款；待搬离后30日内付清40%。协议第六条还约定搬迁后不得从事农牧业生产等。A矿业于2022年5月31日付60%共13038330.15元，刘志刚2023年7月拆原房，A矿业8-9月付余款共8568669.84元。后A矿业认为刘志刚新建房屋违约，2025年5月起诉要求拆除新建房屋并搬离，由被告承担诉讼费。刘志刚委托律师进行辩护。文品良Attorney representation.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is the agreement involved in this case an administrative agreement or a civil agreement?As a company, A Mining cannot file a civil lawsuit against the administrative agreement.
  • Focus Two: Can the plaintiff directly exercise the administrative enforcement rights of demolition and removal according to the contract?Non-administrative bodies do not have law enforcement powers.
  • Focus 3: How should we interpret the contradictions in the terms of the agreement and the liability for breach of contract?Is there a conflict between retaining the right to operate as a contractor and the requirement to move out?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The defendant (Liu Zhigang) claimed that:During the performance of the agreement, we have already demolished the original house, and the plaintiff has paid the full amount. The plaintiff's request to demolish and rebuild the new house lacks contractual and legal basis. The new house is located on our own residential land, and the plaintiff has no right to interfere with it.

The plaintiff's (A Mining Company) position:It is alleged that Liu Zhigang violated the agreement by constructing new buildings without approval after receiving all the compensation, and it is requested that the court order the demolition of the new buildings and ancillary facilities, and that he vacate the grassland, and bear the litigation costs.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:

  • Apply to add additional parties: C Village Committee and D Town Government have an interest in the case and should be added to participate in the litigation;
  • Clarify the nature of the agreement: The agreement is essentially an administrative agreement. A Mining Company is not an administrative organ and therefore does not have the right to initiate a civil lawsuit against the administrative agreement;
  • The defendant has fulfilled his main obligations, and the plaintiff does not have the right to enforce administrative laws. The request to demolish the house and remove the items essentially constitutes an administrative punishment and coercion, which the plaintiff is not entitled to exercise on his own.
  • The conflicting terms of the agreement should be interpreted in favor of the defendant. If the defendant's homestead land is not confiscated and recovered, the defendant has the right to build according to the regulations; it violates the principle of "no double prosecution for the same offense".

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that the agreement is legal and valid, and the main obligations of both parties have been fulfilled. Liu Zhigang violated the Land Management Law by building a new house without approval, and should first be punished by the administrative authorities. Moreover, the parties did not have a clear agreement on the liability for breach of contract (only agreed on compensation and losses, not including the demolition and removal of the house). According to Articles 509 and 577 of the Civil Code, Article 62 of the Land Management Law, and Article 64 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law, the court ruled to dismiss all the claims of the plaintiff, A Mining Co., Ltd., and ordered the plaintiff to bear the case acceptance fee of 100 yuan.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Administrative litigation and administrative reconsideration are highly specialized, with strict procedural deadlines and evidentiary requirements. It is recommended that you hire a professional lawyer as soon as possible when your rights are infringed, so that the lawyer can identify the administrative violations, secure evidence, and draft legal documents. In this case, Wen Pinliang, a lawyer from Beijing Hengluo Law Firm (practice license number: 11101201910111365, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ), acted as the agent. Relying on his accurate grasp of the legal norms and practical adjudication rules in the relevant field, he helped the client achieve a favorable outcome.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over Relocation Compensation Agreements

  1. Q: Is the relocation compensation and resettlement agreement an administrative agreement or a civil agreement?
    A: Contracts involving the government's duty of compensation for expropriation are usually of an administrative agreement nature, and non-governmental parties generally cannot initiate civil litigation against them.
  2. Q: Can the company force the demolition households to demolish their houses according to the agreement?
    A: No. Demolition and removal are administrative coercion and punishment, which can only be carried out by administrative authorities in accordance with the law. Enterprises do not have the right to enforce administrative laws and regulations.
  3. Q: Is it a breach of contract to accept the compensation and then build a house?
    A: If violating the agreement may constitute a breach of contract, the liability for breach of contract shall be in accordance with the agreement; if there are no provisions on demolishing the house in the agreement, the court generally will not support the forced demolition.
  4. Q: How should we interpret the contradictions in the terms of the agreement?
    A: If there are contradictions in the format or drafted terms provided by one party, they are usually interpreted in favor of the other party (the non-drafting party).
  5. Q: How can a lawyer specializing in administrative agreements in Beijing assist their clients?
    A: The lawyer can accurately define the nature of the agreement, clarify the boundaries between administrative and civil matters, and reject the other party's improper claims.