[Case Summary]This case is an administrative enforcement lawsuit. Liu Dashan's 30-square-meter extension house in B City, A Province was identified as an illegal construction by the neighborhood office and the law enforcement bureau and was forcibly demolished. Liu Dashan entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.文品良The lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit, claiming that the "rectification notice" was based on unclear facts, applied the wrong law, and violated procedural rules. The forced demolition was carried out without a formal decision, without giving notice, and without guaranteeing the right to remedy. The court, based on the presumption of consistency between duties and rights, determined that the two defendants were the main parties responsible for the forced demolition, and concluded that the procedure was seriously illegal. The court ruled that the forced demolition was illegal. Legal provisions applied: Articles 2, 35, 37, and 8 of the "Administrative Enforcement Law"; and Article 74(2)(1) of the "Administrative Litigation Law".

I. Review of the case

Those who have been subject to forced demolition often search for terms like "how to confirm that forced demolition is illegal", "is it legal to demolish without posting a decision on forced execution", and "what to do if the procedure for identifying illegal construction is illegal". Liu Dashan is an old resident of Shuguang Street in B City. Behind his business premises, there is a 30-square-meter extension house. It originated from a demolition remnant in 1998 and was expanded with the consent of the former deputy director of the county housing and urban-rural development bureau and the written approval of residents in 2003. Over the past 21 years, the government has never dealt with it. On April 15, 2024, the street office and the law enforcement bureau jointly issued a "rectification notice" claiming that it was an illegal construction and requiring it to be self-demolished before April 21; on May 9, the two defendants organized a forced demolition.

Liu Dashan believes that the forced demolition is illegal and has appointed an attorney to handle the case for him.Wen Pinliang is a talented writer who has written many excellent works.The lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit. The focus of the dispute is whether the two defendants carried out the forced demolition and whether the act was legal.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the two defendants are the main entities responsible for the forced demolition.Both defendants denied carrying out the demolition, and the case needs to be handled in accordance with the principle of consistency between responsibilities and rights and the presumption of evidence.
  • Focus 2: Whether the forced demolition process is legal.The "Rectification Notice" involves both substantive and procedural issues, and the forced demolition failed to comply with legal procedures.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (Liu Dashan) alleges that:The "rectification notice" fails to clarify the facts, applies the wrong law, and violates legal procedures; the forced demolition did not make a formal administrative decision, failed to give notice, and failed to guarantee the rights to make statements, defend oneself, and seek remedies, constituting a serious infringement of rights.

The defendant (the sub-district office and the law enforcement bureau) argued that:The street office said that they only went to the scene to persuade and did not participate in the demolition; the law enforcement bureau said that they only maintained order at the request and did not carry out the demolition, and provided the "Identification of Illegal Buildings Letter" and the reply letter.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:文品良The lawyer pointed out that the "Rectification Notice" failed to investigate basic facts such as the construction party, time, and area, and the facts were unclear; it erroneously cited civil laws such as the Civil Code and the Provincial Property Management Regulations, which should be governed by administrative laws; and the failure to inform the parties of their right to make statements and defenses was illegal. The forced demolition also violated the "Administrative Enforcement Law": the authorities failed to issue a written enforcement decision, failed to give a notice, and failed to guarantee the right to remedy during the remedy period before carrying out the forced demolition, which constituted a procedural violation.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court, in accordance with the principle of consistency between responsibilities and rights, presumed that the two defendants carried out the forced demolition: they jointly issued the demolition order, informed the intention of enforcement through telephone recordings, and the video showed that the responsible person was present to direct the demolition. The defendants failed to provide evidence of demolition by others. The procedures were seriously illegal: they failed to make a written decision on enforcement, failed to urge the defendants to safeguard their right to relief, and carried out the forced demolition within the statutory period for relief. In accordance with Article 74, Paragraph 2, Item 1 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the court ruled that the forced demolition by the two defendants was illegal. This judgment laid the foundation for the parties to apply for compensation in the future.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm文品良Attorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201910111365, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ). In case of forced demolition, don't panic. You should stay calm and promptly hire a professional lawyer. When the administrative organ carries out forced demolition, it must have a formal decision, issue a notice of demolition and guarantee the right to seek remedies. If the procedure is illegal, you can apply for confirmation of the illegality and request compensation.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Land Acquisition and Demolition

  1. Q: How to confirm that forced demolition is illegal?
    A:For administrative litigation initiated against procedural violations such as failure to make a decision, failure to give a reminder, and failure to guarantee the right to relief, the plaintiff requests to confirm the illegality of the actions in question.
  2. Q: Is it legal to demolish a building without posting the enforcement decision first?
    A:It's illegal. Administrative enforcement must be based on a written administrative decision.
  3. Q: What should I do if the procedures for identifying illegal construction are illegal?
    A:You may request a review of the facts, the application of the law, and the procedural issues in the document.
  4. Q: What's the point of confirming that forced demolition is illegal?
    A:It is a necessary prerequisite for subsequently applying for administrative compensation and claiming damages.
  5. Q: Do I have the right to make a statement and defend myself before the forced demolition?
    A:Yes, the administrative organ shall inform the party concerned and explain the reasons, and guarantee the party's rights to make statements, defend themselves, and file a lawsuit for review.