[Case Summary]This case involves an administrative review dispute over the disclosure of government information. Liu Shufen, who is over 60 years old, entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm in May 2025 to handle the matter related to the YC to PL High-Speed Railway (Section F) project involving her own land.文品良The lawyer team applied to the H City government for disclosure of seven pieces of information, the core of which were the land expropriation announcements and the land expropriation approval documents from higher-level governments. The H City government rejected two key pieces of information on the grounds of "state secrets" and "non-existence of the information". The lawyer's agent initiated an administrative review, and the review authority accepted the lawyer's viewpoint, determining that the "state secrets" response lacked sufficient evidence. The review authority revoked the corresponding response and ordered the government to provide a new response within 20 working days. The core dispute: the legality of the determination of state secrets and the response of "non-existence of the information". Applicable legal provisions: Article 14 of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information", Article 6 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Legal Issues Regarding the Handling of Administrative Cases Involving the Disclosure of Government Information", and Article 64 Paragraph 1 Item 1 of the "Administrative Review Law".

I. Review of the Case Facts

In practice, some administrative authorities often use the pretext of "state secrets" to refuse to disclose land expropriation information. The people subject to expropriation want to know "can the land expropriation approval be made public?" and "can the government's claim that the information does not exist be appealed?" In May 2025, Liu Shufen, who was over 60 years old, entrusted our law firm to handle the case because the construction of the YC to PL high-speed railway (Section F) project involved her own land. She wanted to clarify the legality of the expropriation and protect her rights and interests.文品良The lawyer team mailed the "Application for Disclosure of Government Information" to the People's Government of H City, requesting the disclosure of seven key pieces of government information, including the project land expropriation announcement, the land expropriation approval from higher-level governments, and the compensation and resettlement plans.

In July of the same year, the H City government responded by stating that the two most crucial documents, "the land expropriation approval from the higher-level government", would not be disclosed as they were classified as "state secrets"; and regarding the "land expropriation announcement", it claimed that the information did not exist because the project was still in the process of completing the approval procedures. The lawyer deemed the response incomplete and erroneous, and infringed upon the right to information. Therefore, he filed an administrative review with the local A Autonomous Prefecture People's Government, requesting the revocation of the aforementioned two responses and ordering the government to disclose the information within a specified timeframe or provide a written explanation.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is there sufficient evidence to prove that the land expropriation approval from the higher-level government was classified as a state secret?If the respondent fails to submit confidentiality markings, confidentiality periods, or legal proof materials, the reply shall be deemed insufficient evidence.
  • Focus II: Is the reply that the "information does not exist" in the land expropriation announcement legal and reasonable?Does it explain the statutory prerequisites and acquisition methods for generating information?
  • Focus Three: The handling conclusions of the reconsideration organ on the two responses.The focus of the controversy is whether the first two responses are legal, and the decision is to revoke or maintain them.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The applicant (Liu Shufen) claims that:The H City government's response to the two key pieces of information, namely the land expropriation approval and the expropriation announcement, is incomplete and erroneous, infringing upon the citizens' right to information. We request that the government revoke the decisions and order the information to be made public in accordance with the law or provide a reasonable explanation.

The position of the respondent (H City Government):The approval for land expropriation by higher authorities is a state secret and will not be disclosed; the announcement of land expropriation does not exist because the project is still in the process of being approved.

Hengluo Lawyer's Representation Opinion:文品良The lawyer, in accordance with the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information", sorted out the scope of disclosure, procedures, and statutory circumstances of non-disclosure, and argued that:

  • The second allegation is that the superior authorities classified the land expropriation approval as a state secret without providing evidence or specifying the level of secrecy. According to relevant laws, the determination of state secrets must follow legal procedures. This constitutes an abuse of power and a violation of the right to information.
  • The first item stated that the land expropriation announcement did not exist because it was still under approval, but the announcement had legal validity and inevitability. The respondent failed to specify the exact time of its issuance and the method of obtaining it, and the reply was too general and lacked reasonable explanations.
  • In summary, the refusal to disclose the information violates the law. We request the review organ to support the applicant's request for review.

IV. Outcome of the case

After receiving the application, the People's Government of the Autonomous Prefecture conducted a comprehensive review and adopted the core legal opinions of Attorney Wen Pinliang. Regarding the land expropriation announcement: The project construction land is currently under approval and has not yet obtained the approval document. The response to this issue was not improper. Regarding the land expropriation approval from the higher-level government: The review organ pointed out that the H City government claimed that the approval document was a state secret, but failed to submit any secrecy markings, confidentiality periods, or other legal proof materials, making it impossible to confirm that it was indeed a state secret. According to Article 14 of the "Regulations on the Openness of Government Information" and Article 6 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Legal Issues Concerning the Administration of Administrative Cases Involving the Openness of Government Information", administrative organs must provide sufficient evidence when refusing to disclose information on the grounds of state secrecy. Therefore, the response to this issue lacked sufficient evidence. In accordance with Article 64 Paragraph 1 Item 1 of the "Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China", the review organ decided to revoke the response to the second item of the application in the H City government's Reply Letter No. XZFC [2025] X3 and ordered the H City government to make a new response to the second item of the application within 20 working days from the date of receipt of the decision letter.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

The government information shall be made public as the norm and kept confidential as the exception. This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.文品良Attorney (practice license number: 11101201910111365, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's reminder: Applying for government information is an important right enjoyed by citizens according to law. If an administrative organ refuses to disclose information on the grounds of state secrets, it shall provide evidence; in case of evasive or erroneous responses, citizens can safeguard their right to know through administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation in accordance with the law to avoid delaying subsequent rights protection procedures.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Cases Involving the Disclosure of Land Acquisition Information

  1. Q:The government replied that the land expropriation approval document is a state secret. Can I appeal against it?
    A:Yes. If the administrative organ fails to submit the confidentiality mark, the confidentiality period, or the materials proving that the information involved in the confidentiality has been legally classified as confidential, the reply lacks sufficient evidence, and you can apply for administrative reconsideration to request its revocation and order the administrative organ to provide a new reply.
  2. Q:Is it reasonable that the applicant was told that the information on the public announcement of expropriation does not exist?
    A:The issuance of the expropriation notice is subject to the receipt of the approval document. If the reply only vaguely mentions the application for approval without specifying the time and method of issuance, the reply lacks reasonableness, and the applicant may request a reconsideration to have the matter handled again.
  3. Q:What circumstances are exempt from disclosure according to the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information?
    A:According to the law, information classified as state secrets, trade secrets, personal privacy, and other legally defined circumstances may not be disclosed, but this must be supported by evidence; not all "sensitive" information can be refused to be disclosed.
  4. Q:After the review revokes the improper reply, how long does the government have to provide a new reply?
    A:In this case, the review organ ordered the respondent to provide a new response to the original request within 20 working days from the date of receipt of the review decision, which is consistent with the general time limit for responding to requests for information disclosure.
  5. Q:How can the land-expropriated individuals legally obtain the land expropriation approval document and compensation plan?
    A:You can apply to the municipal and county governments that made the expropriation decisions and their natural resources departments for public disclosure. If you receive an illegal response, you can promptly file for reconsideration or litigation, and keep the mailing receipts and signing records.