[Case Summary]This case is an administrative lawsuit. Zhang * is a lessee of public housing in Chaoyang District. With the consent of his unit, he built five houses for himself to live in for several decades since 1996. In 2025, during the urban village renovation, the defendant only compensated for the public housing and refused to include the five self-built houses. On June 13, the defendant demolished the five houses and the items inside them without Zhang *'s knowledge. Zhang * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Shang RuichaoThe lawyer requested to confirm that the forced demolition was illegal. The core disputes are whether the defendant is qualified as the subject of the case and whether the forced demolition has gone through the statutory procedures. Applicable laws: The Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China, and Articles 25 and 74 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China. The court ruled that the forced demolition and the destruction of the items were illegal.

I. Review of the case

How to protect one's rights when self-built houses are demolished and the items inside are damaged? The parties often search for keywords such as "Is it illegal for public housing tenants to build their own houses and then have them demolished?" "Can the demolition without notice be confirmed as illegal?" and "How to sue against forced demolition in residential areas?" Zhang * is a public housing tenant at No. 8-8 XX Road, A Shuguang Village, Chaoyang District, Beijing. His father, a former employee of D Factory, was allocated a public housing unit at No. 1-1. Due to a large family, Zhang * built a two-story house with five rooms adjacent to the public housing unit in 1996 with the consent of his employer, and the entire family lived there for decades, with Zhang * as the household head. In April 2025, the A Government of Chaoyang District initiated the urban village transformation project, and the involved houses were included in the demolition plan. On April 14, the government issued a "Letter to Residents", and on June 12, it delivered the "Notice on Demolition Compensation Rights", only compensating for the No. 1-1 public housing unit and refusing to include the five self-built rooms built in 1996. On June 13, the five rooms were demolished without Zhang *'s knowledge, and all living supplies and decorations were destroyed. When Zhang * reported the case to the police, the police refused to initiate an investigation, citing that the demolition was a government action. Zhang * has now entrusted a lawyer to handle the case.Shang RuichaoThe lawyer requests to confirm that the forced demolition is illegal.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the defendant is a qualified subject.The defendant denied committing the act. Can we presume that he/she is the subject of responsibility for the administrative enforcement action?
  • Focus Two: Is the forced demolition process seriously illegal?They failed to obtain consent, authorization, or comply with procedures such as issuing a notice of default and implementing enforcement decisions.
  • Focus 3: The plaintiff's legal standing.Do the public housing tenants, self-builders, and owners of the items have the right to sue as plaintiffs?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff originally claimed that:Zhang * claimed that the defendant led the forced eviction and demolition of his self-built five-room house and the destruction of his property without his consent or following any legal procedures. He requested that the court confirm that the forced demolition was illegal and that the defendant should be held accountable for it.

The defendant argued that:The defendant argued that the plaintiff was only a lessee of public housing and not an owner, so she was not a qualified party to bring the lawsuit; the defendant did not carry out the demolition; the house belonged to the village collective, and the act of civil recovery did not fall under the scope of administrative litigation; the demolition did not affect the resettlement benefits and did not constitute an infringement.

Legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Shang RuichaoThe lawyer comprehensively fixed the evidence (letters, notifications, photos, police reports, text messages), clarified the subject's qualifications, and retrieved the Supreme Court's rules in combination with the Administrative Enforcement Law and the Administrative Litigation Law to argue that: the defendant established a command center, issued documents, and provided compensation notifications, which constituted the implementation of the project and the subject of compensation. The demolition of legal buildings was presumed to be administrative enforcement, and civil entities do not have the authority to carry out forced demolitions. The plaintiff was a public housing tenant, a self-builder, and the owner of the items, and thus qualified as an interested party. The forced demolition lacked authorization and failed to comply with the requirements of issuing a notice of default, hearing statements and defenses, and making a decision on enforcement. This constituted a typical illegal administrative enforcement. Since the house had already been demolished, there was no content that could be revoked. Therefore, it was confirmed to be illegal in accordance with Article 74, Paragraph 2, Item 1 of the Administrative Litigation Law.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court's judgment confirmed that the defendant, Chaoyang District A Government, illegally forced the demolition of five houses and the decoration and damage to the items in six houses on June 13, 2025. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff has the qualification to file a lawsuit; the defendant organized the eviction in a comprehensive manner, even if the village collective admitted that the demolition was an extension of administrative power; the forced demolition without consent and failure to comply with the procedures of the Administrative Enforcement Law constituted an illegal administrative enforcement; and the damage to the items in the houses was also illegal.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is represented by Attorney Shang Ruichao of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice certificate number: 11101202211560090, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ). Confirming that the forced demolition is illegal is an important prerequisite for subsequently applying for state compensation and seeking resettlement and compensation. A reminder to the evicted individuals: If they encounter situations such as "only compensating for public housing and refusing to recognize self-built housing" and forced demolition, they must immediately call the police, take photos and videos to fix the evidence, and, in response to defenses such as the unqualified subject, entrust professional lawyers to cite the rules of the Supreme Court to confirm the government's responsibility.

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

  1. Q: Is it illegal for public housing tenants to build their own houses and then have them forcibly demolished?
    A:If the self-built house is used by its owners for long-term residence and they are the owners of the items in it, and the forced demolition is carried out without authorization or in violation of legal procedures, the court can confirm that it is illegal.
  2. Q: Can it be confirmed that the forced demolition is illegal if there's no prior notice?
    A:Yes. If the demolition proceeds without fulfilling the procedures of issuing a reminder, making an announcement, hearing the statements and defenses of the parties concerned, and making a decision on forced execution, it constitutes a serious violation of legal procedures, and the party concerned may apply for a confirmation of the demolition's illegality through legal means.
  3. Q: How to sue for the forced demolition of a street?
    A:The administrative organ leading the eviction shall be the defendant. Collect the eviction documents, notification letters, photos of forced demolitions, and police reports, and request to confirm that the actions are illegal.
  4. Q: Can I claim compensation if my property inside the house is damaged during forced demolition?
    A:Yes. It's illegal to forcibly demolish buildings, which may cause damage to property. After confirming the illegality, you can apply for state compensation based on this fact.
  5. Q: Is the village collective's repossession of the house considered a civil act?
    A:If the eviction is organized and coordinated by an administrative organ, even if it is carried out by the village collective, it is still considered an extension of administrative power and therefore falls within the scope of administrative litigation.