[Case Summary]This case is an administrative review case regarding the performance of compensation and resettlement duties. A aquaculture company was established in 2004. It relied on more than 22 mu of legally contracted land for aquaculture. In 2017, the land was included in the scope of expropriation, but no agreement was signed and no compensation was provided for nearly ten years. In August 2025, the company submitted an "Application for Performance of Compensation and Resettlement Duties", and in October, it received a "Reply to Duties Performance" stating that the land plot had not been expropriated and did not meet the conditions for compensation. Moreover, the compensation standard only calculated based on the number of carp fry, omitting the operating losses of the fish pond and land compensation. The company entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer filed an appeal, and the reviewing authority revoked the response and ordered the district government to make a compensation decision within six months. The core disputes are whether the district government failed to perform its administrative duties and whether the compensation standards are legal. Applicable laws: the Land Administration Law; Articles 64 and 66 of the Administrative Review Law.

I. Review of the Case

"What should I do if the farm has been expropriated for years without compensation?" "Is it legal for the government to say there's no compensation if the expropriation hasn't started yet?" "Do the losses from fish pond farming count as production and business losses?" These are typical concerns for aquaculture operators. A Aquaculture Co., Ltd. was established in 2004. Its operation site is located in Shuguang Village, Qianjin Street, B District of a certain city. The company relies on more than 22 acres of legally contracted land to engage in high-value aquaculture such as soft-shelled turtles and ornamental fish. In February 2017, the municipal government of a certain city issued a "Land Expropriation Announcement", including the company's farming site in the scope of expropriation of 23.2920 hectares of collective land. Subsequently, relevant departments successively issued announcements on compensation and resettlement plans, issued demolition and resettlement compensation plans and signing procedures, and initiated expropriation compensation.

However, in the nearly ten years since then, the expropriation department has never signed a compensation agreement with the company, and the B District government has also failed to make a compensation decision in accordance with the law. In August 2025, the company submitted the "Application for Fulfilling the Duty of Compensation and Resettlement" to the B District government, and received the "Reply on Duties Performance" in October of the same year, which was informed that the land expropriation procedures for the plot had not been initiated and the conditions for making a compensation decision were not met, directly refusing the compensation request; and the reply only calculated the loss of production and business suspension based on the house, completely omitting the core profit source of fish pond aquaculture, ignoring the company's legitimate land contracting and operating rights, and only compensating the fish pond according to the standard of crucian carp seedlings, which seriously deviated from the actual operating losses. After repeated communication without results, the company entrusted a lawyer to handle the case.Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer represents the client to protect their rights and interests.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Does the B District government constitute administrative omission of duty?Is it a violation of legal procedures to have already initiated the expropriation but refused to make a compensation decision?
  • Focus II: Is the factual determination in the "Reply to Duties" incorrect?It is questionable whether the statement that "the expropriation has not been initiated" contradicts the objective facts stated in the announcement of the expropriation plan that has already been issued.
  • Focus 3: Compensation standards and whether the project is legal.Is it a violation of the principle of fair compensation to omit core operating losses and land compensation fees?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The applicant (the aquatic products company) claims that:The enterprise is operating legally, and the site is within the scope of expropriation. The district government should provide compensation in accordance with the law. We request the revocation of the reply and an order to make a compensation decision.

The respondent (the government of District B) argued that:They refused to provide compensation on the grounds that "the land expropriation procedures have not been initiated", claiming that their response was factually accurate.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Zhi Chao LiAfter conducting on-site inspections of the business operations, obtaining relevant certificates, and studying the Land Administration Law and local expropriation regulations, the lawyer argued the following points: Firstly, the "Duty Performance Reply" contained factual errors - the land in question had already been included in the expropriation plan in 2017, and the plan announcement had been issued. Claiming that "the expropriation had not yet started" contradicts the objective facts. Secondly, the district government constituted administrative omission - according to the Land Administration Law, when no agreement could be reached, the government should have made a compensation decision in accordance with the law. However, the government refused to make a decision and refused to negotiate the evaluation, reversing the statutory procedures. Thirdly, the compensation standards and project identification were illegal - the compensation failed to include the loss of business profits from the fish pond, and did not mention the land compensation fees and resettlement assistance fees, only compensating for the bluefish seedlings, which violated the principle of fair compensation. Fourthly, the evaluation process was not initiated in accordance with the law, depriving the enterprise of the right to fair compensation.

IV. Outcome of the case

The municipal people's government accepted this case, applied the ordinary procedure, and extended the time limit for 30 days due to the complexity of the case. After hearing the opinions of both parties, it concluded that: A Company's buildings and fish seed, among other attached structures, are located within the scope of the expropriation announcement, and the B District government has a statutory duty to provide compensation; the relevant announcement of the compensation plan, the demolition plan, and the signing process have been published, and the compensation process has actually been initiated. It is obviously improper for the district government to fail to make a compensation decision in a timely manner, which constitutes omission of duty. Its "Duty Performance Reply" based on the claim that "the compensation process has not been substantially initiated" fails to clarify the facts and should be revoked according to law; the dispute over compensation for land contracting rights belongs to a civil dispute and can be claimed separately; and objections to the compensation standards can be raised in a separate lawsuit after the specific compensation actions. In accordance with Articles 64 and 66 of the Administrative Review Law, it is decided to revoke the B District government's "Reply to the Application for Performance of Compensation and Resettlement Duties" dated October 20, 2025, and order it to make a compensation decision for A Company's attached structures, fish seed compensation, and operational losses within six months from the date of receipt of the decision.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

The compensation for expropriation shall follow the principles of fairness and timeliness. The administrative organ shall not evade responsibility by claiming that the expropriation has not been initiated after it has already started. In this case,Zhai Chao LiAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202311629788, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ): Reminder: For those who engage in farming and other business operations and are subject to expropriation, the losses of operating profits from fish ponds, land compensation fees, resettlement assistance fees, etc. all fall within the scope of statutory compensation. If the administrative authority delays the compensation for a long time or the compensation standards are obviously too low, they should promptly entrust professional lawyers to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests through the application for performance of duties and administrative reconsideration.

VI. Common Questions and Answers for Special Service Cases

  1. Q: What should I do if the farm has been expropriated for many years but no compensation has been provided?
    A: Submit the "Application for Fulfilling the Duty of Compensation and Resettlement" to the district government where the expropriation takes place. If the government refuses or evades the responsibility, you can apply for administrative reconsideration to order the government to make a compensation decision.
  2. Q: Is it legal for the government to not provide compensation if it hasn't initiated the expropriation process?
    A: It's illegal. If the announcement of expropriation and the compensation plan have been issued, it shall be deemed that the expropriation has been initiated. The administrative organ shall provide compensation in accordance with the law and shall not refuse to compensate on the grounds of "not having initiated the expropriation".
  3. Q: Are the losses from fish pond farming considered production and business suspension losses?
    A: Yes. The loss of operating profits from the fish pond is a direct operating loss, and it should be included in the compensation for production and business suspension and operational losses.
  4. Q: Is it reasonable to only compensate fish ponds based on the number of blue fish fry?
    A: This is unreasonable. The compensation should be based on the enterprise's legitimate land contracting and management rights, including land compensation fees, resettlement assistance fees, and operational losses. The compensation based solely on the standard for fish seed is obviously too low.
  5. Q: Can the review revoke the government's response and order compensation?
    A: Yes. According to Articles 64 and 66 of the Administrative Review Law, the decision can be revoked if the facts found are unclear, and the administrative organ shall be ordered to make a compensation decision within a specified time limit.