[Case Summary]This case involves an administrative dispute over the disclosure of government information in the field of land expropriation and demolition. The party concerned, Liu **, whose house is located within the scope of the overall development and transformation project of Shuguang Village in Luoyang City, only received part of the resettlement transitional allowance after the expropriation. In order to verify the legality of the expropriation and the flow of funds, he entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.He NingningThe lawyer applied for the disclosure of government information, but the reply made by the People's Government of XX District of Luoyang City refused to disclose the proof of the transition fee funds being in place and the distribution ledger, etc., on the grounds of "the information does not exist" and "involving privacy". Attorney He accurately identified the illegal points such as the administrative organ's failure to distinguish and handle the case and perform its duties according to law, and filed an administrative reconsideration with the People's Government of Luoyang City. The reconsideration authority adopted the opinion, revoked the part of the reply related to the transition fee materials and ordered a new reply, opening up a channel for the party to obtain key evidence of the compensation for expropriation.

I. Review of the case

Many people who have been expropriated have similar questions: How to appeal against an unsatisfactory response to a request for government information disclosure? Have the land expropriation compensation funds been fully disbursed? The house of the party concerned, Liu **, is located within the scope of the overall development and transformation project of Shuguang Village in Luoyang City, and after the house was expropriated, Liu ** only received part of the resettlement transitional fees. In order to verify the legality of the expropriation project and clarify the fund transfer behind the failure to fully disburse the resettlement transitional fees, Liu ** entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.He NingningThe lawyer, as a specially authorized agent, retrieves the materials related to land expropriation through the government's information disclosure channels.

Under the guidance of Attorney He Ningning, on April 13, 2026, Liu ** submitted a request for government information disclosure to the People's Government of XX District of Luoyang City, requesting the disclosure of five items of information: the notice of housing expropriation for the land involved in the case; the "Shuguang Village Overall Development and Transformation Expropriation Compensation and Resettlement Plan" and its announcement; the proof of the availability of expropriation compensation funds; the proof of the availability of funds for expropriation resettlement transitional fees and their disbursement situation; and the transitional fee disbursement ledger, disbursement records, and explanations of the reasons for insufficient disbursement for the Shuguang Village transformation project.

After receiving the reply from the district government, the applicant requested an extension of the time limit for response. On June 8, 2026, the district government issued the "Reply to the Application for Government Information Disclosure" No. XX Yi Shen Fu [2026] X6, providing only the text of the resettlement compensation plan. The government informed the applicant that the three pieces of information, including the housing expropriation announcement, the resettlement plan announcement, and the proof of the availability of expropriation compensation funds, did not exist. The government also refused to disclose all the information related to the transitional allowance, including the proof of the availability of funds, the disbursement situation, the disbursement ledger, the payment records, and the explanation of the reasons for the insufficient disbursement, on the grounds that it involved the rights and interests of third parties and personal privacy. After receiving the reply on June 11, Liu * * * disagreed with it and believed that the reply failed to perform its duties according to law, had an unclear determination of the facts, and applied the wrong laws. Therefore, he resolutely filed an administrative reconsideration with the People's Government of Luoyang City.

II. The focus of the case

  • Duty performance dispute: The district government claimed that "the information does not exist". Did it fulfill its obligation to conduct a comprehensive search, and did this constitute a failure to perform its duties in accordance with the law?
  • Distinguish and handle disputes: For transaction fees ledgers and disbursement records involving third-party privacy, should administrative authorities handle them differently and disclose them after removing sensitive information, rather than banning their disclosure altogether?
  • Program dispute: When an administrative organ refuses to disclose information on the grounds of privacy, should it first seek the third party's opinion in writing?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

Both parties' arguments and defenses:The respondent, the People's Government of XX District of Luoyang City, claimed that it had conducted a search in accordance with the law, that some of the information did not exist, and that the materials related to the transition fee involved the rights and interests of third parties and personal privacy, so they would not be disclosed. The applicant for reconsideration, Liu **, claimed that the reply was illegal and requested to revoke the reply and order the respondent to make a new one.

Attorney He Ningning's representation opinion:

(I) The respondent has a statutory obligation to disclose information. According to Article 21 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information, the information requested by the applicant is directly related to the legality of land expropriation and compensation, and the respondent should disclose it in accordance with the law.

(II) Failing to perform its duties in accordance with the law and claiming that the information does not exist and lacks basis. According to Article 47 of the Land Management Law and Article 28 of the Implementing Regulations of the Land Management Law, the respondent merely stated in general terms that "the information does not exist after searching", without providing evidence of the scope and method of the search, making it impossible to confirm that it has fulfilled its obligation to conduct a comprehensive search. It directly applied Article 36(4) of the Government Information Disclosure Regulations to refuse to provide the information, which lacks factual support and deprives the applicant of the right to know about the land expropriation.

(III) Failure to distinguish between different types of information and apply the law incorrectly. According to Article 32, Article 36 (3) and Article 37 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, information containing third-party privacy should first be subject to written consultation with the third party; where the information can be distinguished and processed, the disclosable content should be provided and only the privacy-related parts should be concealed. The transitional fee payment ledger and disbursement records contain all the applicant's personal information, while only the information of others is considered private. The respondent failed to provide proof of seeking the third party's opinion or to separate and anonymize the information, and directly refused to disclose the entire document in its entirety, which violates the statutory procedures for distinguishing between different types of information and processing them accordingly.

IV. Outcome of the case

After a comprehensive review, the People's Government of Luoyang City concluded that: The district government has conducted reasonable and prudent searches for three pieces of information, including the housing expropriation announcement, and informed the public that there were no legal issues. The resettlement plan provided by the district government complied with regulations; however, the proof of the availability of funds for expropriation and resettlement transitional fees is a document related to the overall fund allocation, which does not involve privacy and meets the conditions for public disclosure. The transitional fee disbursement ledger and payment records can be handled with anonymity and de-identification to distinguish between different cases. The district government's refusal to disclose the information entirely on the grounds of privacy violates the provisions on differentiated disclosure in Article 37 of the "Regulations on the Openness of Government Information"; "the explanation of the reasons for not fully disbursing the funds" refers to the explanatory materials required to be prepared by the administrative organ after the fact, which does not belong to existing government information. The district government's response to this matter was corrected and no separate order for rectification was issued; and the response process was found to be legal.

The review organ made a review decision in accordance with Article 64 Paragraph 1 Item (1) of the "Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China": It revoked the respondent's reply in the XX Reply No. XX [2026] X6 of June 8, 2026 to the fourth item "Proof of the availability of funds for the resettlement transition fee and the distribution situation" and the fifth item "Distribution ledger and payment records of the transition fee for the Shuguang Village renovation project", and ordered the respondent to make a new reply within the statutory time limit.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Article 37 of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information" establishes the "principle of differentiated handling": If the requested information contains content that should not be disclosed but can be handled differently, the administrative organ shall provide the content that can be disclosed and explain the reasons for not disclosing the other parts. The compensation for expropriation concerns the vital interests of the people. Information disclosure is an important way for the expropriated to verify the legality of the expropriation and whether the compensation funds are fully in place. The administrative organ shall not simply refuse on the grounds of "involving privacy" or "the information does not exist".

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.He NingningThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202511925103, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

VI. Common Questions About Land Acquisition and Demolition Cases FAQ

  1. Q: How to appeal against an unsatisfactory response to a request for government information disclosure? A: You may file an administrative appeal with the government at your current level or with the superior competent authority within 60 days from the date you receive the response. Specifically, if you believe the response violates the law, you may request its revocation and order to be redone.
  2. Q: Is it legal for administrative authorities to refuse to disclose information by saying that "the information does not exist"? A: Of course not. They must provide evidence of the search scope and methods. If they directly determine that the information does not exist without fully searching for it, the decision can be reviewed and corrected through administrative reconsideration.
  3. Q: Are all government information related to others' privacy not disclosed to the public? A: Not necessarily. Where it is possible to distinguish and process the information, the privacy parts should be removed and the publicly disclosable content should be provided. Refusing to disclose the entire information violates the principle of distinguishing and processing information.
  4. Q: The transitional housing allowance hasn't been fully paid. How can I check the status of the funds being allocated? A: You can request the proof of the availability of funds for public expropriation compensation, the transitional housing allowance disbursement ledger, and the allocation records. Use these documents to verify the flow of funds through information disclosure.
  5. Q: If the review organ revokes part of the reply, do we still need to provide a new reply? A: Yes. If the review decision orders the administrative organ to make a new reply, the administrative organ shall provide a new reply on the relevant matters within the statutory time limit.