[Case Summary]This case is an administrative lawsuit for forced demolition. Mr. W and Ms. F had a homestead house in a certain village in Shaanxi, which was included in the scope of expropriation in 2010. However, they failed to reach a resettlement agreement due to the low compensation standard. On November 17, 2021, the house was demolished by the service center of a certain district. The couple entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Wu JianiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit against the forced demolition of the house, but the first-instance court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the defendant was not a suitable party. The lawyer appealed, arguing that the forced demolition originated from the city government's entrustment to the Municipal Unified Acquisition Office, and the city government should bear responsibility for it. Moreover, it violated the principle of "identical cases receiving identical judgments". The second-instance court adopted the lawyer's arguments, ruled to revoke the original judgment, and ordered the case to continue the trial. The core disputes are: the determination of the suitable defendant for the forced demolition and the principle of "identical cases receiving identical judgments". The applicable legal provisions are the relevant regulations on the defendant's qualification in administrative litigation and the responsibility for entrusting the acquisition.

I. Review of the Case Facts

"The house was demolished, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the wrong defendant was sued. What should I do?" This is a typical dilemma in land expropriation and demolition litigation. Related terms include "what to do if the lawsuit against forced demolition is dismissed", "the defendant in administrative litigation is not qualified", "how to solve the problem of different judgments in the same case", and "whether to sue the district government or the municipal government". W and F are a couple who own a homestead and a house in a village in Shaanxi. On March 26, 2010, the municipal government issued a notice to expropriate and demolish land and houses in the first phase, and identified the land expropriator and demolisher as the "Unified Land Expropriation and Demolition Transfer Office of the Municipal People's Government" (Transfer Office). W and F's house was included in the expropriation scope.

On October 17, 2010, the Transfer Office entrusted the Management Committee of a certain district (the Management Committee) to organize and implement the land expropriation and demolition work. The Management Committee conducted a survey of the houses of W and F and commissioned an appraisal. However, due to the compensation standard being too low, the W couple failed to reach a demolition compensation and resettlement agreement with the Management Committee. Later, the Management Committee notified that it was entrusted by the government of a certain district to carry out the demolition, and on November 17, 2021, the houses involved in the case were demolished by the Service Center of a certain district.

In order to protect their rights and interests, W * and F * entrusted Henglue Law Firm to handle the case for them.Wu JianiThe lawyer helped safeguard the client's rights by filing a lawsuit against the "forced demolition of the house", arguing that "the government's act of forcibly demolishing the house without reaching an agreement on resettlement and compensation is illegal".

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is the district government or the municipal government the appropriate defendant in this case?The first-instance court dismissed the case on the grounds that the district government was the main entity responsible for the demolition and the plaintiff was not qualified to sue the municipal government as the defendant; the lawyer argued that the responsibility for forced demolition should be borne by the municipal government.
  • Focus II: Whether it violates the principle of "identical cases, identical sentencing".There have been judgments in similar cases in the same district confirming that the municipal government is the defendant. Does the direct dismissal in the original trial undermine the fairness of the trial?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiffs (W * and F *) allege that:The two individuals claimed that it was illegal for the government to forcibly demolish the buildings without reaching an agreement on the resettlement and compensation. They requested that the court confirm that the forced demolition was illegal.

The defendant (the municipal government, etc.) argued that:The court of first instance and the original court held that the district government was the main responsible party for the demolition, and that the plaintiff's suing the municipal government was an unqualified defendant. The court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Wu JianiThe lawyer filed an appeal, requesting to revoke the original ruling, remand the case for retrial, or modify the sentence in accordance with the law, and stated the following:

  • The original trial determined that the district government was the responsible subject, and dismissed the defendant as unqualified, which was a legal error. On the day of the forced demolition, the municipal government directed the implementation, and the demolition action originated from the municipal government's entrustment to the Municipal Comprehensive Land Acquisition Office and then to the Management Committee. After the Management Committee was restructured into a service center for a certain district, it became a directly subordinate institution of the municipal government, so the municipal government should bear the responsibility for the forced demolition and be a qualified defendant. The original trial assigned the responsibility to the district government based on the "Implementation Plan for Handling the Legacy Issues of Demolition in a Certain Area", which lacked legal, regulatory, or rule-based basis and could not be regarded as an authorization.
  • The original trial violated the principle of "identical cases receiving identical judgments": The Intermediate People's Court of a certain city has already made a judgment confirming that the municipal government is the defendant in related cases involving the same expropriation, the same expropriation subject, and almost identical circumstances. In the original trial, the court should have applied the principle of "identical cases receiving identical judgments" instead of directly ruling to dismiss the case.

IV. Outcome of the case

After the court heard the case, it fully adopted the opinions of Hengluo Law Firm and held that the appeal had factual and legal grounds, and the original ruling was obviously improper. The final ruling is as follows:Revoke the original administrative ruling of the Intermediate People's Court of a certain city; instruct the Intermediate People's Court of a certain city to continue the trialGenerally, legal provisions for demolition and relocation cases are complex, involve many disputes, and are easily manipulated. In this case, under the insistence and rational argumentation of Hengluo Lawyers, the client was able to open the door to protecting their rights and take another step towards "victory".

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

It is crucial to choose the correct defendant in litigation over land expropriation and demolition. If you sue the wrong person, the lawsuit will be dismissed and you will miss the opportunity to protect your rights. When encountering the situation that the lawsuit against forced demolition is dismissed, it is recommended to entrust a professional lawyer in land expropriation and demolition as soon as possible to clarify the entrustment relationship and identify the appropriate defendant. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmWu JianiThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202011245064, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acted on behalf of the client and, relying on the rules regarding the qualification of defendants in administrative litigation, successfully pushed for the second-instance court to order the continuation of the trial.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Land Acquisition and Demolition Cases

  1. Q: The court dismissed the lawsuit against forced demolition on the grounds that the defendant was not a suitable party. What should I do now?
    A: It can be appealed, and the plaintiff claims that the defendant was properly qualified. In this case, the first-instance court identified the defendant incorrectly, and the second-instance court revoked the original ruling and ordered the case to continue to be tried.
  2. Q: When it comes to forced demolition, should we sue the district government or the municipal government?
    A: It depends on who commissioned the implementation. If the implementing unit is entrusted by the municipal government or its dispatched agencies, the responsibility lies with the municipal government, and the municipal government should be the defendant in the lawsuit.
  3. Q: If there are different verdicts for the same case, can I use the previous verdict as evidence?
    A: Yes. The judgments of similar cases handled by the same tax authority during the same tax collection period can be used as a reference. We advocate for equal treatment of similar cases, and the lawyer in this case will argue based on this principle.
  4. Q: Is it illegal to demolish a house without signing a compensation agreement?
    A: It's usually illegal. If the relocation and compensation agreement hasn't been reached and the compensation decision hasn't been made according to law before the forced demolition takes place, it's often considered illegal.
  5. Q: Can I still sue after the ruling dismissing the case of forced demolition has been made?
    A: If the original ruling is revoked by the second-instance court and the court is instructed to continue the trial, the case will enter the substantive trial stage; if the dismissal is upheld, the plaintiff needs to find the correct defendant and litigation path.