[Case Summary]This case is an administrative review case (forced demolition decision). Liu Dashan built a 316.14-square-meter house on the homestead in Shuguang Village, XX Town, A District, without obtaining planning permission. On October 29, 2025, the town government issued a "Forced Demolition Decision" and decided to demolish the house two days later. Liu Dashan entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Yu DaweiThe lawyer represented the client in applying for administrative reconsideration to revoke the decision. The reconsideration authority determined that the town government failed to fulfill procedures such as hearing statements and defenses, and violated the principle of procedural justice. Given that the house had already been demolished, it confirmed that the "forced demolition decision" was illegal. The core disputes are: whether the procedures of the forced demolition decision are legal, and the consequences of not guaranteeing the right to make statements and defenses. Applicable laws: Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, and 44 of the "Administrative Enforcement Law", and Article 65 of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law".

I. Review of the case facts

Residential land housingI was suddenly subjected to forced demolitionVillagers often search for terms like "What should I do if my house on rural land is forcibly demolished?", "Can the illegal nature of the demolition decision be confirmed?", and "Is it legal for the town government to carry out the demolition without following the proper procedures?". The defendant, the People's Government of XX Town in A District of Beijing City, inspected and found that the house built by Liu Dashan in Shuguang Village was suspected of being an illegal construction. After confirming this, the defendant issued a "Forced Demolition Decision" to Liu Dashan on October 29, 2025, determining that the 316.14-square-meter house had been built without obtaining planning permission and constituted an illegal construction. The defendant decided to carry out the forced demolition two days later. Faced with the sudden forced demolition decision, Liu Dashan was very anxious and entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Yu DayiOn October 31, the lawyer, on behalf of the client, applied for administrative reconsideration to the People's Government of District A, requesting the revocation of the "Demolition Decision".

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the procedure for making the decision on forced demolition is legal.Before making an unfavorable decision, did the town government fulfill legal procedures such as informing the parties involved and hearing their statements and defenses?
  • Focus II: The legal consequences of failing to guarantee the right to make statements and defend oneself.Is omitting key steps a violation of procedural law and an infringement of legitimate rights and interests?
  • Focus Three: How to seek remedies when a house has already been demolished.When the decision contains irreversible content, can it be confirmed to be illegal?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The applicant (Liu Dashan) claimed that:The town government's decision to forcibly demolish the building violates legal procedures in a serious way. We request that the "Decision on Forcible Demolition" be revoked.

The respondent (the town government) argued that:It has the statutory duty to investigate and deal with illegal construction; the houses involved in the case are illegal buildings, and the decision concludes that the facts are clear, the evidence is sufficient, the law is correctly applied, and the procedure is legal.

Legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Yu DawaiThe lawyer reviewed the entire process of the forced demolition decision and pointed out that it violated Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, and 44 of the Administrative Enforcement Law, as well as Article 75 of the Beijing Urban and Rural Planning Regulations. The core opinion is clear: even if the house is identified as an illegal construction, the administrative authority must follow legal procedures when making an unfavorable decision. Most importantly, it must inform the parties of their rights to make statements and defend themselves and listen to their opinions, which is the bottom line of procedural justice. Before making the "forced demolition decision", the respondent completely omitted this step, seriously infringing Liu Dashan's rights and interests. The lawyer assisted in organizing identity proofs and certificates of ownership of the residential land, and submitted the "forced demolition decision" as the core evidence.

IV. Outcome of the case

The review organ found that the case was registered on October 24, 2025, and a letter of inquiry was sent on October 26. On October 27, the review organ received a reply letter confirming that no planning permission had been obtained. On October 29, the review organ made and posted the "Decision on Forced Demolition". The review organ held that although the town government had the power to investigate and deal with the case, the construction involved in the case had not obtained planning permission, and the town government had failed to perform procedures such as hearing statements and defending itself, and had failed to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved, violating the principle of procedural justice. Given that the building involved in the case has already been demolished, the decision has no revocable content, so the review organ decided to maintain the original decision.Confirm that the "Forced Demolition Decision" is illegalIn accordance with Article 65 Paragraph 2 Item 1 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Yu DaweiThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201010292290, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. This case is a typical example of "emphasizing substance over procedure" in administrative law enforcement. Procedural violations may lead to the confirmation of the illegality of the administrative act, the administrative organ's liability for compensation, the punishment of responsible personnel, and damage to the government's credibility. Even when facing illegal construction, the administrative organ should investigate according to law, fulfill the obligation to inform, guarantee the right to make statements and defenses, and serve the documents according to law.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over the Forced Demolition of Rural Homesteads

  1. Q:What should I do if my house on a residential plot is forcibly demolished?
    A:Timely appoint a lawyer to apply for administrative reconsideration or initiate administrative litigation against the decision of forced demolition, with a focus on reviewing whether the decision-making process is legal.
  2. Q:Is the decision to forcibly demolish the building legally without following the proper procedures?
    A:Before carrying out the forced demolition, the administrative organ must go through procedures such as giving notice and hearing the statements and defenses of the parties concerned. Omitting key steps is a procedural violation.
  3. Q:Can we still confirm that the forced demolition is illegal even though the house has already been demolished?
    A:When the decision contains irrevocable content, the review or litigation can confirm its illegality and provide a basis for subsequent compensation.
  4. Q:Is it always the case that unauthorized buildings will be demolished directly?
    A:No. It is still necessary to carry out procedures such as investigation, notification, statement and defense, and service in accordance with the law. Otherwise, it will constitute a procedural violation.
  5. Q:After confirming that the forced demolition is illegal, can I demand compensation?
    A:On this basis, one can claim administrative compensation and require the administrative organ to assume the liability for the damage caused by the illegal demolition.