[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the performance of an administrative promise and the identification of unregistered buildings. The party involved, Lu **, owned a house of 273.64 square meters in Shuguang Village, Qianjin Town, A County, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province. In 2010, due to the reconstruction of a provincial highway, part of the house was demolished, and it was approved to reinforce and add a fourth floor to the remaining part. In 2020, when the town government carried out the expropriation, it only compensated the reinforced and added part at 600 yuan per square meter as illegal construction, and issued an "Other Agreement" preserving the right to consultation, appeal, and litigation. After the party involved lost all the first-instance, second-instance, and retrial litigations on their own, they entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhang WeiThe lawyer safeguarded the client's rights and interests. Through the "concurrent review of two administrative reconsiderations" and litigation mediation, it was finally determined that the third floor of the unregistered building with an area of 349.52 square meters, which had an area of 110.21 square meters, was deemed legal. As a result, the client's compensation increased from almost zero to about 400,000 yuan.

I. Review of the Case Facts

The people subject to expropriation often have questions such as "Can unregistered buildings receive compensation?", "Are additions made during the expropriation considered illegal construction?", and "What should I do if the government fails to fulfill its administrative promises?". Lu * * * originally owned three two-story houses at No. 154 Fengru Road, Shuguang Village, Qianjin Town, A County, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province. On July 14, 1992, he obtained a collective land construction land use certificate (registering 132.1 square meters), and on July 15, 1999, he obtained a house ownership certificate (registering 273.64 square meters). In 2010, due to the reconstruction of the XX Provincial Highway, 68.8 square meters were demolished. Due to safety concerns about the foundation, he applied for and was approved to reinforce and add a fourth floor to the building.

In 2020, the house involved in the case was again included in the scope of expropriation. Lu * * * * * signed a compensation agreement for expropriation and resettlement with the town government, but the agreement did not recognize the four-story structure that had been reinforced and overbuilt. Instead, it compensated the structure at a rate of 600 yuan per square meter as unauthorized construction. At the same time, the town government issued a "Supplementary Agreement", stating that Lu * * * * * could submit evidence to explain the reasons for building the house and clarify responsibilities before negotiating further, and reserving the right to administrative reconsideration and litigation. Subsequently, the house was completely demolished. Lu * * * * * independently initiated a lawsuit to enforce the administrative promise obligation, but lost all the first, second, and third-instance litigations. The court refused to accept the case on the grounds that the comprehensive law enforcement bureau had already intervened in the investigation. After the case reached an impasse, Lu * * * * * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle it.Zhang WeiAttorney representation.

II. The focus of the case

  • After the Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau filed a case, it failed to handle it substantively or inform the parties of the outcome for a long time. Does this constitute procedural inaction, and is the original ruling that "the case has been investigated" justified?
  • Should the town government strictly abide by and fulfill the written administrative promises made in the "Other Agreements", and conduct a new investigation and determination of the unregistered buildings?
  • Can buildings that have been approved for reinforcement and additional floors due to unsafe foundations caused by government road construction and demolition be re-investigated and recognized as legal buildings?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

Both parties argued their cases: The original court of first instance held that the local comprehensive law enforcement bureau had intervened in the investigation and handling of the disputed building, so the plaintiff's claim for performance of duties could not be established; the town government claimed that it had compensated according to the standard for illegal construction and that the compensation amount could be negotiated.Zhang WeiThe lawyer conducted a comprehensive review of the original trial judgment, the expropriation compensation agreement, the "Other Agreements", and the case files of the Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau, and found a key breakthrough: After the house was lost in 2020, the Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau only issued a case filing notice, with no subsequent procedures or penalty decisions issued. This constituted a procedural omission of "only filing a case but not handling it substantively". The original court's assumption that "the law enforcement authorities would handle the case normally" did not materialize. Based on this, the lawyer developed a "parallel review of two administrative reviews" strategy:

Firstly, we apply to the comprehensive law enforcement bureau to confirm that the administrative omission is illegal. We point out that after the case is filed, the bureau exceeds the statutory time limit for handling the case (generally 60 days, and the maximum extension for complex cases is 30 days), and only terminates the internal review but never informs the public of the handling result. This constitutes a serious procedural violation.

Secondly, in response to the town government's administrative promise to fulfill the obligations of consultation and investigation determination in the "Other Agreements". It is argued that the town government promised in writing that after the parties submitted evidence to explain the reasons for building the house, it should re-consult with them. The house in question was built because the government's road construction and demolition of houses caused the foundation to be unsafe. After applying for and obtaining approval, the house was reinforced and added floors. It cannot be simply treated as an illegal construction. The town government should fulfill its promise to re-investigate and determine the matter.

Thirdly, leveraging hearings and litigation mediation. After the reconsideration hearing, the comprehensive law enforcement bureau voluntarily withdrew the case and made a decision not to impose a penalty; although the reconsideration against the town government was rejected, the fact of procedural violations had been established, laying a foundation for subsequent consultations and negotiations. The lawyer then filed a lawsuit, insisting that the administrative organ fulfill its written promises and conduct a new investigation and determination of the unregistered buildings.

IV. Outcome of the case

After multiple rounds of communication and negotiations, the defendant town government issued a notice on the identification of unregistered buildings, and in September 2026, the county people's government officially issued the "Notice of Lu * * *'s House Compensation and Resettlement Decision". After a new investigation and identification, the relevant departments deemed the third-floor building of 110.21 square meters in the 349.52 square meters of unregistered buildings as a legal building, and the remaining part was identified as an illegal building. About half of the area was recognized as legal. Based on the new legal area identification, the government issued a compensation and resettlement plan, setting up two paths of market-based monetary compensation and property exchange, and calculating the interest losses on the difference in temporary resettlement fees after 2020 according to different interest rates over different periods. Compared with the initial situation of almost no legal compensation, the client's compensation was directly increased by about 400,000 yuan. In the end, we withdrew the lawsuit, and all our substantive rights protection goals were achieved. This case cites relevant legal principles on administrative promises and provisions of the "Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China".

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

How to deal with unfulfilled administrative promises? Can unregistered buildings receive compensation? The written promises made by administrative authorities in the annexes of compensation agreements are obligations that must be strictly fulfilled. The parties involved can apply for enforcement or initiate review and litigation proceedings to protect their rights according to the law. The failure of law enforcement authorities to take action on cases they have registered may also provide an opportunity for legal redress. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Zhang WeiAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202311579912, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting as the agent.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Land Acquisition and Demolition and Administrative Promises

  1. Q: Can unregistered buildings receive compensation? A: Unregistered buildings are not necessarily treated as illegal structures. In cases where the reinforcement or addition of floors is due to historical reasons, government approval, or public interests such as road construction, they can apply for a re-investigation and determination. If they meet the requirements, they can be deemed legal and eligible for compensation.
  2. Q: What should I do if the administrative authority fails to fulfill its promise? A: If an administrative organ makes a written commitment to provide benefits and thereby creates an obligation to fulfill the promise, you can apply for administrative reconsideration or initiate administrative litigation to enforce the fulfillment of the promise in accordance with its content.
  3. Q: Are the parts that are reinforced and added during the expropriation considered illegal buildings? A: For those that are reinforced and added with government approval or for public interests (such as road construction or demolition of buildings leading to unsafe foundations), they should not be simply treated as illegal buildings. Instead, they should be identified based on the approval process and the division of responsibilities.
  4. Q: Is it illegal for the law enforcement agency to only file a case but not handle it? A: If the agency exceeds the statutory time limit for handling the case after filing it and fails to inform the public of the handling result, this constitutes procedural omission. You can apply for administrative reconsideration to confirm the illegality of this action.
  5. Q: Can a case be overturned after losing a lawsuit by oneself? A: You can change your approach and deeply explore the procedural loopholes of administrative authorities. By leveraging strategies such as reconsideration, hearings, and litigation mediation to promote a reassessment, there is still room for protecting your rights.