[Case Summary]This case is an administrative review case concerning the disclosure of government information. The applicant, Zhang **, had his house expropriated for the HS railway project. Despite signing a compensation agreement with the village committee, he failed to receive actual resettlement. When he applied for the disclosure of five categories of expropriation information, the Municipal Natural Resources and Planning Bureau refused on the grounds that "the house had not been expropriated". Beijing Hengluo Law FirmHe NingningThe agent, Zhang **, applied for administrative reconsideration to the municipal government, accurately targeting the unclear determination of the facts and the misapplication of the law. The core disputes include: the applicant's qualification and interest relationship, whether the administrative organ fulfilled its obligation to search for relevant information, and whether the application of the law was correct. The reconsideration organ revoked the illegal reply and ordered the administrative organ to provide a new reply within 20 working days. Legal provisions applied: Articles 13 and 36 of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information".

I. Review of the case

"What should I do if my application for government information disclosure is rejected?" and "How to protect my rights when the information on expropriation is not disclosed?" are the most common problems encountered by those left behind by demolition. Applicant Zhang * * *, a villager of Shuguang Village, XX Town, A City, Hubei Province, legally owned a house and homestead in the village. Due to the construction of the HS Railway A Section project, the land where his house was located was included in the expropriation scope. Although Zhang * * * signed the "HS Railway A Section House Demolition and Compensation Agreement" with the village committee, according to his statement, he has never received actual resettlement compensation and has become a "left-behind household" in the expropriation project. To verify the legality of the expropriation and explore the root causes of the unimplemented compensation, under the guidance of Attorney He, Zhang * * * submitted the "Government Information Disclosure Application Form" to the A City Natural Resources and Planning Bureau via China Post EMS on September 23, 2025, requesting the disclosure of more than ten items of government information in five categories, covering the entire process from land pre-examination, planning permission, status investigation, risk assessment to compensation and resettlement plans, evaluation reports, and even the mapping relationship between the house and the high-speed rail. On October 16, the Municipal Natural Resources and Planning Bureau issued the "Reply to the Application for Government Information Disclosure", stating that the requested information did not exist due to "the applicant's house not being expropriated", and refusing to disclose the information in accordance with Article 36 (4) of the "Regulations on Government Information Disclosure".

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The applicant's main qualifications and interests.The respondent claimed that "the house was not expropriated" and "there was no interest relationship", thereby denying Zhang *'s application qualification.
  • Focus II: Whether the administrative organ fulfilled its obligation to search and verify the information.The respondent only stated that the information did not exist and failed to provide any evidence for searching and retrieving it.
  • Focus 3: Was the application of the law incorrect?Is it legal for the respondent to refuse to disclose the information on the grounds that the information does not exist?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The party concerned (the applicant, Zhang **) claimed that:The house is located within the scope of expropriation of the HS railway project and the applicant has signed a compensation agreement with the village committee. As the applicant has a direct interest in the compensation and resettlement issues related to the project, the information requested for disclosure is necessary to verify the legality of the expropriation and protect their own rights. The respondent's refusal to disclose the information infringes the applicant's legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, the respondent's reply should be revoked and the respondent should be ordered to perform its duties.

The respondent (the Municipal Natural Resources and Planning Bureau) argued that:The applicant's house has not been expropriated, and the government information applied for does not exist. According to Article 36 (4) of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information, it is refused to disclose the information.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:He NingningThe lawyer argued that the reply made by the Municipal Natural Resources and Planning Bureau was factually unclear, lacked key evidence, and was based on illegal legal provisions. First, to establish the legal standing and interest relationship: The lawyer submitted two effective civil rulings from two-level courts, confirming that the compensation agreement signed by Zhang * and the village committee was legal and valid, and that his house was located within the scope of the HS railway project's expropriation, demonstrating a direct interest in the project, effectively refuting the respondent's unilateral statement that "the house was not expropriated" and "there was no interest relationship". Second, to expose the defects in the performance of duties: The respondent only informed that there was no "house location and high-speed rail construction mapping", and failed to provide evidence of fulfilling its obligation to search for relevant information. The applicant's house was less than 10 meters away from the project. As the expropriation authority, the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the relevant information was produced and stored by it. Its refusal to search and verify the information before responding constituted "main facts being unclear and evidence being insufficient". Third, to accurately criticize the misapplication of laws: The respondent's refusal based on the "information does not exist" clause was illegal. According to Article 13 and Article 36 of the Regulations on Government Information Disclosure, except for the legally prohibited circumstances, government information should be disclosed. The respondent wrongly applied the law to refuse disclosure. 律师认为市资规局作出的答复事实不清、主要证据不足、适用依据不合法。第一，夯实主体资格与利害关系：律师提交两级法院生效《民事裁定书》，确认张某某与村委会签订的补偿协议合法有效，其房屋位于HS铁路项目征收范围内，与项目存在直接利益关联，有力驳斥了“房屋未被征收”、“无利害关系”的单方陈述。第二，揭露履职程序缺陷：被申请人仅告知“房屋位置与高铁建设测绘图”不存在，未提供履行检索义务的证据；申请人房屋距项目不足10米，作为征收主体的被申请人部门，理应知晓相关信息由其制作保存，未检索核实即答复，构成“主要事实不清、证据不足”。第三，精准打击法律适用错误：被申请人依据“信息不存在”条款拒绝，适用依据不合法；依据《政府信息公开条例》第十三条、第三十六条规定，除法定不予公开情形外，政府信息应当公开，被申请人错误适用法律拒绝公开。

IV. Outcome of the case

The People's Government of City A adopted the proposal after deliberationHe NingningThe attorney's opinion stated that the review authority held that: Firstly, the respondent had the statutory authority to handle applications for government information disclosure, but failed to fulfill its obligations in accordance with the law; according to Article 36 (4) of the "Regulations on Government Information Disclosure", when informing the applicant that "the information does not exist", the respondent must provide sufficient and reasonable evidence of searching and retrieving the information. In this case, the respondent failed to submit any relevant evidence, and its response lacked sufficient evidence and unclear factual determinations. Secondly, the respondent misapplied the law. Article 13 of the "Regulations on Government Information Disclosure" clearly stipulates that, except for the statutory circumstances where disclosure is not permitted, government information shall be disclosed, and administrative organs may not refuse to disclose information on the grounds of requiring the applicant to have a substantive interest, such as "the house has not been expropriated". In the end, the review authority made a decision: to revoke the "Reply to the Application for Government Information Disclosure" issued by the respondent; and to order the respondent to make a new response to the applicant's application for government information disclosure within 20 working days.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.He NingningAgent. The disclosure of government information is the right of citizens and organizations to obtain information about the exercise of administrative power by government agencies. Except for the matters that are explicitly prohibited from disclosure by law, administrative agencies shall disclose information to the public and parties concerned through effective means. In this case, the lawyer not only helped the client clear the legal obstacles to obtaining key information and laid a foundation for possible subsequent efforts to obtain compensation for expropriation, but also promoted the correct understanding and fulfillment of the statutory duties of government information disclosure by administrative agencies through individual cases.

VI. Common Questions about Cases Involving Information Disclosure - FAQ

  1. Q: What should I do if my application for government information disclosure is rejected?
    A:If the administrative organ refuses on the grounds that "the information does not exist", it should be required to provide search and evidence retrieval; if it fails to provide the information or the reasons are unfounded, one may apply for administrative reconsideration or initiate administrative litigation to revoke the reply.
  2. Q: How can I protect my rights if the information about the expropriation is not made public?
    A:First, apply for the disclosure of land pre-review, compensation plans, evaluation reports, etc. in accordance with the law. If the application is rejected, use the rulings of the two-level courts, compensation agreements, and other evidence to prove the existence of a legal interest. Then, seek redress through administrative reconsideration or litigation.
  3. Q: If the administrative authority says the information doesn't exist, is that the end of it?
    A:No. The administrative organ must provide evidence to prove that it has fulfilled its obligation of reasonable retrieval. If it only verbally informs that the information does not exist without any evidence, the reply may be revoked.
  4. Q: Can I apply for public housing if I'm a resident left over from a demolition project?
    A:Yes. As long as there is a direct interest relationship with the expropriation project (such as signing a compensation agreement or the house being located within the scope of the project), one qualifies as an applicant.
  5. Q: What is the difference between information disclosure and petitioning for government redress?
    A:Information disclosure is the right to legally obtain government information, which is guaranteed by the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information" and can be subject to administrative review and litigation. Petitioning is a channel for voicing grievances, and the two can coexist without conflict.