[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the forced clearance of land by administrative authorities. Liu Dashan, a villager in Heilongjiang Province, had been cultivating 16.5 mu of land for nearly 40 years, but the land was expropriated due to a water conservancy project. Without signing a compensation agreement, the B County Water Bureau forcibly removed more than 10,000 indigoberry trees and a well from the land. Liu Dashan entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit, and the court found that the Water Bureau lacked the authority to forcibly clear the land and that the procedures were seriously illegal. The court ruled that the forcible clearance was illegal. The core disputes include the right to use the reclaimed land, the determination of illegal planting, and the authority and procedures for forcible clearance; the applicable laws include the Land Management Law and the Administrative Enforcement Law.

I. Review of the case

The land was forcibly cleared before the compensation was negotiated. Is this legal? Many people search for questions like "Is it legal to forcibly clear land without signing an agreement?" and "Is it illegal to forcibly clear land for tree planting?" Liu Dashan's family has been farming on 16.5 mu of reclaimed land for nearly 40 years. In 2023, they planted over 10,000 indigo fruit trees and dug two wells. Due to the inclusion of the water conservancy project in the expropriation, Liu Dashan's request for information disclosure was denied, and he never knew the full plan. He did not sign a compensation agreement. In July 2025, the B County Water Bureau forcibly cleared the fruit trees and wells without notice. Liu Dashan entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting to confirm that Qiangqing had violated the law.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether Liu Dashan enjoys the legal right to use the virgin land.The entity in question has been farming the land for nearly 40 years without a land ownership certificate. Is it eligible to do so?
  • Focus 2: Does planting fruit trees constitute "illegal planting"?The planting time was earlier than the pre-announcement of the expropriation. Were they aware of this and did it comply with the time requirements?
  • Focus Three: Does the Water Authority have the power and procedures to forcibly remove obstacles?The Water Bureau is not a statutory collection entity. Is Qiangqing's action an abuse of power and a violation of legal procedures?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The original plaintiff claimed that:Liu Dashan claimed that he has been legally using the land for nearly 40 years, but has not signed a compensation agreement. The Water Bureau carried out the forced clearance without notice, causing losses to him. He requested that the Water Bureau's actions be confirmed as illegal.

The defendant argued that:The Water Bureau of County B denied the plaintiff's right to litigation, claiming that the land had been designated as state-owned and that the plaintiff's actions constituted "illegal planting" that was not protected by law. The bureau also argued that the demolition was necessary to safeguard the project and that the demolition process was conducted in accordance with legal procedures.

Legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer submitted audio recordings and provisional and permanent compensation agreements to prove the historical right of use; pointed out that the provincial government's notice was not a "Stop Construction Order" and had not been made public, and that the plaintiff's planting before the pre-announcement of expropriation did not constitute preemptive planting; the Water Bureau was not the expropriation subject, had no power to forcibly clear land, and had not notified, informed of rights, or made a record, which was a serious violation of procedure.

  • Submit the phone recording and the Water Authority's self-admission of "demolition being legal", and identify the appropriate defendant
  • Submit multiple compensation agreements and coordinate drawings as evidence to prove the legal status of possession
  • Citing the Administrative Enforcement Law, it is argued that the procedures of not giving notice and not making a record are illegal

IV. Outcome of the case

The court ruled that: the staff of the Water Bureau admitted that the construction clearance and the defendant's self-admission were legal, and the defendant was a qualified defendant; Liu Dashan had cultivated the land for nearly 40 years to form stable possession, and the defendant failed to prove that the land was classified as state-owned assets; the plaintiff planted crops earlier than the pre-announcement of the expropriation and was unaware of the prohibitive regulations, which did not affect the determination of procedural violations; the Water Bureau failed to notify or inform the rights of the parties or make on-site records, violating the statutory procedures of the "Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China". According to relevant administrative laws and regulations, the court ruled that the forced clearance of Liu Dashan's 16.5 mu of crops and wells by the B County Water Bureau was illegal, and the litigation fees would be borne by the Water Bureau.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmZhai Chao LiThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202311629788, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's reminder: Long-term actual cultivation of virgin land can form a legal right of use; when the administrative organ fails to sign an agreement during the expropriation, it does not have the right to forcibly clear the land directly and must apply to the court for enforcement; in the event of a forced clearance without notice, the party concerned should promptly collect audio recordings, photos, and ownership clues and sue to confirm the illegality of the act.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Forced Clearing of Land Acquisition and Demolition Cases

  1. Q: Can the authorities forcibly remove structures on the ground if no compensation agreement has been signed?
    A:No. It is necessary to apply to the people's court for compulsory enforcement in accordance with the law. It is generally an illegal administrative act for administrative organs to carry out forced clearance on their own.
  2. Q: Is it legal to be forcibly cleared when planting trees on virgin land?
    A:The long-term actual farming forms legal rights of use; if the planting occurred before the announcement of expropriation and the farmer was unaware of the prohibition rules, it does not constitute preemptive planting. If the forced clearance procedures are illegal, the farmer can file a lawsuit against them.
  3. Q: Does the Water Bureau have the right to forcibly demolish my structures on the ground?
    A:The main body responsible for implementing land expropriation is the government at the county level or above. Water authorities generally do not have the power to forcibly clear land, and any unauthorized clearance of land would be illegal.
  4. Q: Is it necessary to notify everyone to attend the meeting before conducting a Q&A session?
    A:It's necessary. Administrative coercive measures must notify the parties to attend, inform them of their rights to seek remedies, and prepare on-site records. Otherwise, the procedure will be illegal.
  5. Q: How to gather evidence when a child is forcibly taken away by the authorities?
    A:Keep the records of planting, payments, on-site photos and videos, communication recordings, and alarm records, and consult a lawyer in time to initiate administrative litigation.