[Case Summary]This case involves an administrative enforcement dispute over land expropriation and urban renewal. Liu Shufen and her husband have long leased collective land in Shuguang Village, Qianjin Town, A District, Beijing City, and planted fruit trees and other attachments on the land. In December 2021, the trees in the orchard were cut down and removed by the construction unit, causing significant property losses. She filed an administrative lawsuit to request that the Qianjin Town Government's forced removal be declared illegal, but the first-instance and second-instance courts rejected her lawsuit on the grounds of "insufficient evidence and lack of factual basis", leaving her in a "powerless situation" to protect her rights. Beijing Henglu Law FirmZhi Chao LiAfter the lawyer accepted the entrustment, he accurately organized three sets of new evidence, conducted multi-dimensional argumentation on fact determination and legal application, and applied to the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court for a retrial, which was granted. The Beijing Municipal Third Intermediate People's Court revoked the original first- and second-instance rulings in the retrial and instructed the first-instance court to retry the case, reopening the door to judicial relief for the parties involved.

I. Review of the Case Facts

Many people who have been expropriated anxiously ask: What should I do if the buildings on the land are forcibly removed? My fruit trees and crops were secretly cut down, but the town government refused to accept my complaint. Is there any way to seek justice? The appellants, Liu Shufen and her husband, Zhang *jun (who passed away in 2023), were villagers of Shuguang Village, Qianjin Town, A District, Beijing City. Since 1986, they had been renting and farming collective land in the village for a long time, planting fruit trees and crops on the land. Although they did not sign a written contract with the village committee, they had been paying land rent on time and enjoyed legal property rights to the buildings on the land. Later, the land involved in the case was included in the scope of the Qianjin Town shantytown renovation project in A District.

In December 2021, the trees in the orchard planted by the two were cut down and removed by the construction unit, and the ground attachments suffered major property losses. After the incident, Liu Shufen immediately called the police and continued to safeguard her rights through communication and applying for information disclosure, but it was impossible to fully clarify the responsible party behind the felling within a short period of time. After continuous investigation and evidence collection, and obtaining key materials such as the compensation agreement for the shantytown renovation project and the logging permit, Liu Shufen filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of A District of Beijing City in October 2024, requesting to confirm that the administrative act of the Qianjin Town Government of forcibly removing and destroying the ground attachments on her land was illegal.

The court of first instance ruled that Liu Shufen's evidence was insufficient to prove that the Qianjin Town government carried out the alleged removal action, and that the lawsuit lacked factual basis, therefore dismissing the lawsuit. Liu Shufen appealed, and the Beijing Municipal Intermediate People's Court of the Third Instance upheld the ruling to dismiss the lawsuit. Out of sheer desperation, Liu Shufen entrusted someone to handle the case for her.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer applied for a retrial to the Beijing Higher People's Court. After reviewing the case, the Beijing Higher People's Court ordered the Beijing Municipal Third Intermediate People's Court to conduct a retrial, which turned the tide of the case.

II. The focus of the case

  • Factual determination dispute: Whether the town government is the responsible subject for the forced removal of the above-ground objects in this case, and whether the original trial wrongly severed the connection between the town government and the removal action.
  • Dispute over the statute of limitations for prosecution: Should it be calculated from the time when the above-ground structures were damaged in December 2021, or from the time when the subject of administrative responsibility was identified in August 2024?
  • Dispute over the conditions for bringing a lawsuit: In the original trial, the court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of "insufficient evidence". Does this confuse the conditions for bringing a lawsuit with the standards for substantive review and deprive the parties of their litigation rights?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

Both parties' arguments and defenses:In the retrial, the government of Qianjin Town insisted on its original opinion and requested to maintain the rulings of the first and second instance and reject all the requests of the applicant for retrial. The applicant for retrial, Liu Shufen, claimed that the original ruling identified the facts and applied the law incorrectly, and requested to revoke the original ruling and instruct the court of first instance to conduct the trial.

Attorney Xi Chao Li's representation opinion:

(I) Three new pieces of evidence identify the responsible parties. The first set of evidence confirms that Liu Shufen is the actual user of the land and the legal owner of the buildings on the land, and therefore has the qualification to be the plaintiff; the second set of evidence confirms the objective fact that the buildings on the land have been removed; the third set of evidence submits the relocation compensation agreement, the relocation plan, the relocation announcement, etc., proving that the Qianjin Town Government is the relocation entity of the project and the main body responsible for organizing and coordinating the relocation. The agreement stipulates that the town government shall organize the clearance and demolition work and participate deeply in the clearance work.

(II) The facts determined in the original trial were incorrect. Although the on-site felling was carried out by the construction company, it was conducted under the framework of the shantytown renovation project and in accordance with the felling permit. The Qianjin Town Government, as the main body responsible for the implementation of the demolition project, cannot simply deny it verbally and claim that there is no evidence to prove that it carried out the contested act. Instead, the court should evaluate the evidence chain of the entire case based on the project background, the content of the agreement, and the government's responsibilities.

(III) The lawsuit was filed within the statutory time limit. The time limit for filing an administrative lawsuit cannot be mechanically calculated from the date of the destruction in December 2021. Liu Shufen only knew that the fruit trees were cut down in 2021 but did not know the responsible party. She continued to protect her rights until August 2024, when she retrieved the compensation agreement and confirmed the town government's responsibility. She then filed a lawsuit in October 2024, which was within the time limit.

(IV) Comply with the statutory conditions for filing a lawsuit. According to Article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law, to file a lawsuit, it is only necessary to have a clear defendant, specific litigation requests, and factual basis. The so-called "factual basis" does not require the litigation stage to meet the standard of proof of victory. The original trial rejected the lawsuit on the grounds of insufficient evidence, confusing the conditions for filing a lawsuit with the standards for substantive review. The case should proceed to substantive review.

IV. Outcome of the case

The Third Intermediate People's Court of Beijing City adopted the main arguments represented by Attorney Xie Chao Li in the retrial: Although Liu Shufen did not sign a written contract for contracted farming, she actually planted crops and enjoyed legal rights to the buildings on the land; The Qianjin Town Government was the evacuee of the housing renovation project. Combined with the compensation agreement and the disposal authority granted by the evacuation plan, it can be determined that it carried out the act of removing the buildings on the land involved in the case; The lawsuit was not filed beyond the statutory time limit; The original trial only dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds of insufficient evidence and failed to comprehensively identify the subject of the act based on the background of the project. There were indeed errors in the determination of the facts and the handling results.

The court, in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China and the relevant provisions of the judicial interpretation of the Administrative Litigation Law by the Supreme Court, made a ruling on retrial: to revoke the original second-instance administrative ruling (2025) Jing 03 Xing Zhong XX1 and the original first-instance administrative ruling (2024) Jing XXXX Xing Chu XX0, and instruct the People's Court of A District of Beijing to continue to try the case. The case returned to the first-instance court and officially entered the substantive trial, and the property damage dispute was substantively handled in the litigation.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

The conditions for filing a lawsuit in administrative litigation do not mean that the plaintiff must fully prove that the disputed act is illegal at this stage. According to Article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law, to file a lawsuit, it is only necessary to have a clear defendant, specific litigation requests, and factual basis, which fall within the scope of acceptance and jurisdiction; "factual basis" does not require that the standard of proof for winning the case be reached at the stage of filing the lawsuit, but that there be preliminary evidence linking the disputed act to the defendant. The original court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of "insufficient evidence", which actually confuses the conditions for filing a lawsuit with the standards for substantive review.

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmZhi Chao LiAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202311629788, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting as the agent.

VI. Common Questions About Land Acquisition and Demolition Cases - FAQ

  1. Q: What should I do if the buildings on my land are forcibly removed? A: Immediately call the police, take photos and videos of the scene, apply for public information disclosure to retrieve the compensation agreement and logging permits, and file an administrative lawsuit after identifying the responsible party.
  2. Q: If the lawsuit against the town government for forced demolition is dismissed due to "insufficient evidence", can there still be remedies? A: New evidence can be submitted in the appeal or application for a retrial to demonstrate the defendant's legal standing. If the conditions for a retrial are met, the judicial supervision procedure can be initiated.
  3. Q: When does the statute of limitations for administrative litigation begin? A: It begins from the date when you know or should have known about the administrative act and the responsible party. If you don't know the responsible party, you can file a lawsuit after the evidence has been confirmed.
  4. Q: If I haven't signed a land contract, can I sue if the fruit trees on the land are cut down? A: Yes. If you have been farming the land and paying fees for a long time, forming a de facto business relationship and having rights to the assets on the land, you have the qualification to be the plaintiff.
  5. Q: Is it difficult to overturn a final judgment in a retrial? A: It's extremely challenging, but by meticulously organizing the chain of evidence and identifying errors in factual determination and legal application, it's still possible to initiate a retrial, a rehearing, and reopen the door to legal remedies.