[Case Summary]This case is a second-instance administrative litigation. Zhangjiakou City * Coal Washing Co., Ltd. is not satisfied with the "Notice of Ordering a Limited Time for Demolition", the "Decision on Enforcement", and the "Decision on Administrative Reconsideration" issued by the county government, and has entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on its behalf.Shang Ruichao、Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer filed an appeal. The core disputes are whether the first-instance proceedings were illegal, whether the building was an illegal construction, and whether the enforcement decision and the reconsideration decision were legal. Applicable laws: Article 86 and Article 89 Paragraph 1 Item 3 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and the relevant provisions of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China, the Land Management Law, and the Administrative Enforcement Law. The second-instance court adopted the lawyer's opinion and revoked the first-instance judgment, the No. 22 Enforcement Decision, and the Administrative Reconsideration Decision.

I. Review of the Case

Companies often search for terms like "decision on forced demolition revoked and won the second-instance litigation", "how to overturn the case when the first-instance procedure is illegal", and "what to do if the company's building is identified as an illegal construction" when seeking justice against forced demolition. On September 4, 2023, the People's Government of a certain town in a certain county issued a "Notice Ordering Demolition within a Time Limit" to a coal washing company, citing that its coal washing plant was an illegal construction. On September 11, the government issued a "Decision on Enforcement", and on September 22, the announcement was posted on the county government's website and delivered in writing. Subsequently, the coal washing plant was forcibly demolished. To safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, the coal washing company entrusted Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Shang Ruichao、Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit on behalf of the client. The court of first instance found that the coal washing plant had not gone through the formalities of obtaining construction land use rights, was an illegal building, and the forced demolition procedure was legal. The court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Were there any procedural violations in the first-instance trial?The lawyer pointed out that the first-instance court failed to respond to the application for recusal in accordance with the law, dismissed the case orally at the hearing, and refused to review the case, thereby depriving the parties of their legitimate rights.
  • Focus II: Whether the appellant's building is an illegal construction, and whether the respondent's actions are legal.The lawyer pointed out that the building is located within the coal logistics base of the collective construction land planned in 2005, and the agreement acknowledges that it meets the requirements. The first-instance court did not require the appellee to provide evidence of the planning documents.
  • Focus Three: Whether the enforcement decision and the review decision involving the case should be revoked.The lawyer argued that the enforcement decision lacks legal and implementation basis, and should be revoked.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The appellant (the coal washing company) claimed that:The coal washing company appealed, requesting to revoke the first-instance judgment, make a new judgment in accordance with the law, or instruct the basic-level court to retry the case. It claimed that the first-instance procedure was illegal, the respondent's actions were unlawful, the facts determined by the first-instance court were unclear, the determination of the illegal construction was beyond the scope of the case, and the enforcement decision was unfounded.

The respondents (the town government and the county government) argued that:The appellee claimed that the construction of the coal washing plant had not gone through the formalities of obtaining a construction land planning permit and was an illegal building. The forced demolition process complied with the law, and he requested that the first-instance judgment be upheld.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Shang Ruichao、Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer pointed out that: Firstly, the first-instance procedure was illegal. The appellant submitted an application for recusal on December 17, 2023, but the first-instance court failed to respond in accordance with the law, orally rejected the application at the hearing, and refused to review it, depriving the appellant of their legitimate rights; Secondly, the respondent's actions were illegal. The appellant's building is located within the coal logistics base of the collective construction land planned by the town government in 2005. All agreements acknowledged that it complied with the regulations, but the respondent failed to submit the planning documents and the first-instance court did not require the respondent to provide evidence in accordance with the law; Thirdly, the first-instance court relied on hearsay and partial evidence to determine the building as illegal and failed to refer to the precedent rulings of the Supreme Court; Fourthly, the determination of the illegal building was beyond the scope of the trial of this case, and the enforcement decision involving the case lacked legal basis and enforcement basis, and should be revoked.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court of second instance fully adopted the legal opinions of Hengluo Law Firm and held that the court of first instance did indeed make a judgment with unclear basic facts and should be corrected. In accordance with the provisions of Article 86 and Article 89 Paragraph 1 Item 3 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: First, revoke the administrative judgment made by the People's Court of * County; Second, revoke the No. 22 "Enforcement Decision" issued by the defendant * Town People's Government of * County; Third, revoke the "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" issued by the defendant * County People's Government. This judgment is final and binding.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

This case is jointly represented by Attorneys Shang Ruichao (practice license number: 11101202211560090, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) and Qie Chao Li (practice license number: 11101202311629788, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) from Beijing Henglu Law Firm. When an enterprise encounters a forced demolition decision and a reconsideration decision, it should pay attention to reviewing whether the decision-making authority has submitted the planning and authority basis, and whether the forced demolition has a statutory enforcement basis. If there are procedural violations such as failure to respond to a recusal request in the first-instance trial, the party may appeal and overturn the verdict on this basis. If the administrative organ fails to provide evidence to prove that the building is an illegal construction and the forced execution decision lacks a basis, the second-instance court may revoke the original judgment and the forced demolition and reconsideration decisions.

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

  1. Q: What does it mean that the decision of forced demolition was revoked and the second-instance judgment was in favor of the plaintiff?
    A:If the second-instance court revokes the first-instance judgment, the forced demolition decision, and the reconsideration decision, the forced demolition will lose its legal basis. This can serve as a prerequisite for subsequent claims for compensation and will constitute the final judgment.
  2. Q: How to appeal a case if the first-instance procedure was illegal?
    A:If the first-instance court fails to respond to the application for recusal in accordance with the law, or rejects it orally during the trial and refuses to review it, etc., it constitutes a procedural violation. On this basis, the appellant may claim to revoke the original judgment, remand the case for retrial, or change the judgment in the appeal.
  3. Q: What should I do if an enterprise's building is identified as an unauthorized construction?
    A:It should be reviewed whether the planning permit has been obtained, the nature of the land use, and the historical agreements. If the administrative organ fails to provide evidence to prove that the building is illegal, the determination can be overturned.
  4. Q: Can a forced execution decision be revoked if it lacks legal basis?
    A:Yes. If a court finds that the decision to forcibly evict lacks legal and executive basis, it may revoke it in accordance with the law.
  5. Q: Can the review decision also be revoked?
    A:Yes. If the review decision upholds or makes a decision on illegal demolition, and it is found to be wrong in the lawsuit, it can be revoked simultaneously.