[Case Summary]This case is a dispute over the infringement of the right to contract and operate land (involving "reclamation instead of expropriation"). Liu **'s father contracted 22.5 mu of paddy fields. Under the circumstances that the land had been expropriated, the village committee demanded the evacuation on the grounds of "the household being dissolved and the household registration being transferred out", and claimed a usage fee of 1.717 million yuan. The defendant Liu ** and A Company entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhai Chao LiThe agent argued that the contractual rights were protected, the recovery was without legal basis, and the occupation fees exceeded the statute of limitations. The core disputes included the protection of contractual rights, the statutory circumstances for recovery, and the statute of limitations. In the end, the court ruled to reject all the litigation requests of the plaintiff, the village committee. The applicable laws include the Rural Land Contract Law, Article 66 of the Land Management Law, Article 135 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, and Article 28 of the Property Law.

I. Review of the case

"Is it legal for the village committee to take back the contracted land if the household registration is transferred out?" and "Can the village committee take back the land even after it has been expropriated?" are the most worrying issues for farmers in land expropriation and demolition. In the 1990s, Liu **'s father, Liu **1, legally obtained the contracted right to operate 22.5 mu of paddy fields in Shuguang Village, Qianjin Street, XX District, Wuhan City. The district government issued a "Land Contracting and Management Right Certificate", with Shuguang Village Committee as the contractor. In 2004, Liu ** and others invested to establish A Aquaculture Co., Ltd. In 2012, Liu **1 passed away. In November 2024, the village committee issued a "Certificate" stating that the household contractor was a farmer, the household had been dissolved after Liu **1's death, Liu ** had moved out in 1983 and lost her member status, and A Company's failure to sign a contract constituted illegal occupation. In January 2025, the village committee issued a "Eviction Notice", and in July, it served a "Land Recovery Decision", demanding eviction and payment of usage fees at 5,000 yuan per mu per year (with an increase of 1,000 yuan every five years) from August 2012 to September 10, 2025, totaling 1,717,000 yuan. As the two defendants refused to evict, Shuguang Village Committee sued the court. It was also found that the Wuhan Municipal People's Government had issued a land expropriation notice in February 2017, and the land involved in the case was included in the expropriation scope. The defendant entrusted Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhi Chao LiProtect the rights and interests of the team.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the defendant enjoys the legal right to use the land involved in the case, and whether the plaintiff can unilaterally reclaim it.During the contract period, the contractor shall not arbitrarily reclaim the contracted land. Although Liu * * * has moved out, his discharge file has returned to the village and he has not been resettled, so his membership rights should be preserved.
  • Focus Two: Whether the plaintiff's recovery of the land meets the statutory conditions and whether it is "recovery instead of expropriation".The Land Management Law stipulates three types of statutory circumstances for land recovery. In this case, there is no abandonment of farming or land wastage, and the land has already been expropriated. Therefore, the village committee has no right to use land recovery to replace the expropriation process.
  • Focus Three: Whether the land occupation and use fees exceed the statute of limitations for litigation.From 2012 to the present, the plaintiff has not asserted his rights for a long time and only filed a lawsuit in 2025. Is this beyond the statute of limitations?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The party concerned (the defendant Liu ** and Company A) claimed that:The contracting and operating rights certificate of Liu *1 is legal and valid, and the second-round contracting has not been adjusted, so the contracting rights are protected; although Liu * * served in the military and moved out, his discharge file was returned to the village and he was not resettled, so his family still relies on land management as the main source of income, and his rights and interests should be preserved; the land has been expropriated, and the plaintiff evaded the obligation of compensation by substituting the recovery for the statutory expropriation procedure, so the recovery decision is invalid; and the occupancy fee has exceeded the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff (Shuguang Village Committee) claimed that:The household contractors are farmers. After Liu *1's death, the household was dissolved, and Liu *'s household registration was transferred out without any member status. A Company's failure to sign a contract constitutes illegal possession. Therefore, we demand that they vacate the premises and pay the usage fees.

Legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Zhai Chao LiAfter conducting in-depth research, the lawyer put forward the core argument that the case essentially involved an illegal operation of "using recovery to replace expropriation": Firstly, the defendant enjoys the right of legal use and the plaintiff has no right to unilaterally recover the land. According to the Rural Land Contract Law, the contractor shall not arbitrarily recover the contracted land during the contract period. However, the plaintiff issued a notice of eviction stating that "Liu **, a villager of Shuguang Village", and then sued to deny his villager identity, which is contradictory. Secondly, the plaintiff's recovery does not comply with legal requirements. The land involved in the case has been officially included in the expropriation scope by the government, and the expropriation compensation should be implemented in accordance with the expropriation regulations. The plaintiff has no right to replace expropriation with "reclaiming collective land" to evade the obligation of compensation. Thirdly, the villagers' autonomy decisions cannot violate national laws. The plaintiff only issued the notice of eviction and the decision of recovery through a vote at the villagers' representative meeting, without going through the approval procedures of the land-approving government. The procedures are seriously illegal and should be considered invalid. Fourthly, the plaintiff claimed that the use fees have exceeded the statute of limitations. Since Liu **1 died in 2012 and did not claim the rights for a long time, he only sued after the expropriation negotiations failed, which is clearly an example of "using recovery to replace expropriation".

IV. Outcome of the case

After the court heard the case and conducted the trial, it found the facts and adopted the evidenceZhi Chao LiLawyer's opinion and judgment: Regarding the subject qualification, the land involved in the case was included in the scope of expropriation in 2017. According to Article 28 of the then-effective Property Law, after the expropriation announcement was issued, the land was already owned by the state. The plaintiff requested the two defendants to vacate the land and claimed compensation for the land occupation fees after the expropriation, but the plaintiff lacked the necessary legal capacity to do so. Regarding the land occupation fees, according to Article 135 of the then-effective General Principles of the Civil Law, the statute of limitations for litigation is two years. The plaintiff should have filed a lawsuit for the occupation fees before February 2019, which was the latest date before the 2017 expropriation announcement. However, the plaintiff only filed the lawsuit in 2025, which exceeded the statutory period of litigation. Therefore, this claim should not be supported. In summary, in accordance with Article 135 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, Article 28 of the Property Law, and relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, the judgment is as follows: The plaintiff, Wuhan City XX District Qianjin Street Shuguang Village Committee, is dismissed of all its claims; and the case acceptance fee of 10,127 yuan shall be borne by the plaintiff.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmZhi Chao LiAgent. Article 66 of the Land Management Law stipulates three statutory circumstances under which rural collective economic organizations may recover the right to use land, and such actions must be approved by the people's government that originally approved the land use and appropriate compensation must be provided. If the village committee issues a decision to recover the land only after voting at a meeting of villagers' representatives and fails to go through the approval process, the decision may be invalid. The land to be expropriated shall be compensated in accordance with the statutory expropriation procedures, and grassroots autonomous organizations have no right to substitute "recovery" for expropriation. Parties concerned should comprehensively collect evidence such as documents, photos and videos of the current status of buildings on the land, and recordings of communication, and consult professional lawyers in time when necessary.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Cases Involving the Recovery of Contracted Land

  1. Q: Is it legal for the village committee to take back the contracted land when a household's household registration is transferred out of the village?
    A:During the contract period, the contractor shall not arbitrarily reclaim the contracted land; those who move out for military service or other reasons, who have not been employed as state civil servants and who still mainly engage in land management, shall generally retain their membership rights.
  2. Q: If the land has been expropriated, can the village committee still take it back?
    A:After the land is included in the scope of expropriation, it shall be compensated through the statutory expropriation procedures. The village committee has no right to substitute expropriation with "reclaiming collective land" to evade the obligation of compensation.
  3. Q: What should I do if I receive the "Decision on the Revocation of Land Use Rights"?
    A:Analyze the circumstances of the recovery and whether the entity making the recovery is appropriate. Confirm whether the recovery has been approved by the original land-use approval authority and whether compensation has been provided. If necessary, hire a lawyer to protect your rights.
  4. Q: Has the land occupation and use fee required by the village committee exceeded the statute of limitations?
    A:The occupancy fee is subject to the statute of limitations. If it is not claimed for a long time, it may not be supported due to exceeding the statute of limitations.
  5. Q: Can the villagers' representative meeting vote to directly reclaim the land?
    A:The decisions on villagers' autonomy must not conflict with the law or infringe upon legitimate property rights. The recovery of land must be approved by the government that originally approved the land use, otherwise the procedure may be illegal and invalid.