[Case Summary]This case is an administrative review case. In 2023, Liu Dashan, a villager in Xiamen, had his house on a legal residential plot demolished without a signed agreement, and the compensation and resettlement remained unresolved. In 2025, after he applied for government intervention, the A District government office issued a "Notice" requiring him to negotiate with B Town, where there was a significant disparity in treatment compared to similar houses. Liu Dashan entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer filed an appeal, requesting the revocation of the "Notice of Informing". The core disputes are whether the notice is legal and whether the principles of authority and fair compensation have been implemented. Applicable laws: Article 48 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, "Several Provisions on the Collection and Compensation of Collective Land in Xiamen City", and Article 64 of the Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China. The review organ revoked the "Notice of Informing" and ordered the District Development and Reform Bureau to handle the case again within 60 days.

I. Review of the case

After the house was forcibly demolished, the compensation has not been provided. What should one do? The parties often search for terms like "how to protect rights when no compensation is provided after forced demolition", "what to do when the application for fulfilling compensation responsibilities is rejected", and "how to appeal against unfair compensation during expropriation". Liu Dashan, a villager of XX Village in B Town, A District, Xiamen City, owns a legal residential plot and house in the village and holds the "Fujian Province * County * Land and Property Ownership Certificate". His house was included in the expropriation for the national highway project. In May 2023, without signing an agreement or receiving any notice, his house was forcibly demolished, causing huge losses. The compensation and resettlement have been delayed for a long time. In April 2025, Liu Dashan mailed the "Application for Fulfilling Compensation and Resettlement Responsibilities" to the A District government. In June 2025, the A District government office issued a "Notice" requiring him to negotiate and sign the agreement with B Town. Liu Dashan proposed using the area determined by Jifu Zhuan [2011] X1 or referring to the standards of similar "Tong'an Certificates" in 2023, but the expropriation side only calculated the actual area, creating a significant difference in treatment compared to another house. After unsuccessful negotiations, he hired a lawyer to handle the case.Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer requested a review and revoked the "Notice of Disclosure".

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the duty subject is qualified.The government of District A should be responsible for the duties of land expropriation, compensation, and resettlement. The office's request to go to B Town may be an attempt to evade its responsibilities.
  • Focus 2: Whether fair compensation has been implemented.Under the 2010 compensation plan, does it lower the standard of living and violate the principle of fairness?
  • Focus Three: The qualifications of the respondent.Does the district government office have the authority to respond to external inquiries about the duties of compensation for expropriation?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The applicant alleges that:Liu Dashan argued that the government of District A should be responsible for the compensation and resettlement in its jurisdiction, but the office required them to go to B Town for negotiations, evading its duty; the government should guarantee living conditions equivalent to the original living standard according to the principle of fairness; the office has no right to make a reply, and the notice should be revoked.

The respondent argued that:The review organ concluded that the housing expropriation department of District A has the right to respond to the issue of performing its duties, and should report to the district government for a decision on expropriation compensation. However, the existing evidence cannot prove that the department has performed its duties.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer formulated a three-dimensional approach of "targeting authority loopholes, strictly adhering to legal procedures, and upholding the principle of fairness": First, according to the Land Management Law, its Implementing Regulations, and the Xiamen Municipal Government Office's regulations, the A District government is responsible for the expropriation, compensation, and resettlement in its jurisdiction, but the office's requirement to go to B Town constitutes an evasion of its duties; Second, according to Article 48 of the Land Management Law, the compensation should be fair and reasonable and ensure the original living standard, but the 2010 plan seriously reduced the level of compensation; Third, the district government office is only an administrative agency and has no right to make responses to expropriation and compensation. The subject is not qualified, and the notice should be revoked. The district government should make a new decision.

IV. Outcome of the case

After accepting and postponing the review, the review authority concluded that the housing expropriation department of District A had the right to respond and should report to the district government for a decision on expropriation compensation. The notice and evidence could not prove that the department had fulfilled its duties. In accordance with Article 64 of the Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China, it decided to revoke the "Notice on Liu Dashan's Application for Expropriation Compensation" and ordered the respondent, the Development and Reform Commission of District A, to reprocess the application for performance of duties within 60 days from the date of receipt of the decision. This case clearly defines the unshirkable statutory duties of administrative organs in expropriation and compensation.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is being handled by Attorney Qiao Chao Li from Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101202311629788, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). After the house was forcibly demolished, there was no compensation available. It is necessary to apply for the performance of the compensation obligation in a timely manner and fix the evidence of the reply. Against the evasive notice of information, a legal review should be conducted to force the administrative organ to fulfill its duties. A reminder to the subject of expropriation: Forced demolition does not equal exemption from compensation liability. Pay attention to keeping the expropriation documents and communication records. In case of evasive responses such as "go to a certain town to discuss", it is necessary to entrust a professional lawyer as soon as possible to clarify the responsible subject through legal review.

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

  1. Q: How to protect one's rights if there's no compensation after forced demolition?
    A:You can mail an application for fulfilling the compensation obligation to the tax-collecting entity, apply for a review or lawsuit against the letter of evasion, and require it to make a compensation decision in accordance with the law.
  2. Q: What should I do if my application to fulfill the compensation obligation is being put off or evaded?
    A:If the respondent is not qualified or the content of the response evades their duty, the response can be reviewed and revoked, and the respondent will be informed to handle the matter again, with the responsibilities of the parties involved being clearly defined.
  3. Q: How to appeal against an unfair expropriation compensation?
    A:According to Article 48 of the Land Management Law, the applicant claimed fair and reasonable compensation and protection of their original living standards, and the application for revocation of the obviously lowered standard response was rejected.
  4. Q: Is the notice from the district government office valid?
    A:Office buildings are usually just service facilities and are not authorized to respond to external requests for compensation. Notification letters issued to entities that are not qualified may be revoked.
  5. Q: Can I claim compensation if my un-signed agreement house is forcibly demolished?
    A:Yes. Failure to sign an agreement does not exempt from the obligation to provide compensation. After the forced demolition, one can still claim fair compensation and confirm the responsibilities through review and litigation.