[Case Summary]This case is an administrative review of the disclosure of government information. On April 24, 2025, Zhang Li, a villager from A County, Heilongjiang Province, applied to the A County Water Bureau for the disclosure of 11 pieces of information, including the project approval, land expropriation announcements, and compensation plans for the "XX Connectivity" project. He received a reply on April 26, but the Water Bureau didn't send the reply by mail until June 13, which far exceeded the 20-working-day deadline. Moreover, the reply didn't address the actual request and frequently used "state secrets" as an excuse, failing to send the reply in hardcopy as required. Zhang Li subsequently entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer filed for a review, and the review authority confirmed that the Water Bureau's reply exceeded the statutory time limit and was illegal. The core disputes are whether the reply exceeded the time limit and whether the content and form of the reply were legal. Applicable laws: Articles 33, 36, 40, and 14 of the "Regulations on Open Government Information"; Article 65 of the "Administrative Review Law".

I. Review of the Case Facts

"Is it reasonable not to disclose land expropriation information on the grounds of state secrets?" "What should I do if the reply to my request for information disclosure is not what I want?" "Is it legal for administrative authorities not to provide information in the form I require?" These are frequently asked questions by the land expropriated. Zhang Li, a villager of Group 1, Shuguang Village, Limin Town, A County, Heilongjiang Province, has been farming for more than 40 years. In 2023, he planted more than 10,000 indigo fruit trees, but the land was included in the expropriation scope due to the construction of the "XX Connectivity" project. To verify the legality of the land expropriation and the basis for the compensation standards, Zhang Li entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the matter for him.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer safeguards the client's rights and interests.

Zhi Chao LiOn April 24, 2025, lawyer Zhang Li submitted the "Government Information Disclosure Application Form" to the A County Water Bureau through China Post EMS, requesting disclosure of 11 key pieces of information, including project approval materials, land expropriation announcements, compensation plans, funding vouchers, and social stability risk assessment reports. On June 15, 2025, Zhang Li received a reply from the Water Bureau, which did not address his application and was instead a forwarded response from the county government. The reply also failed to provide a comprehensive and substantive response to the 11 items, and additional information was denied on the grounds of "state secrets." The lawyer deemed the reply unlawful and initiated an administrative review against the county government, requesting confirmation of the violation and an order to provide a new response.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the content of the reply is seriously inconsistent with the application matters.Is it a procedural violation for the Water Authority to evade answering the question and to dismiss it with the vague excuse of "state secrets"?
  • Focus 2: Whether the information is provided in the form requested by the applicant.Zhang Li requested that the paper document be mailed with a stamped official seal, but the Water Bureau only told him to "check it at the office". Is this an infringement of his rights?
  • Focus Three: Whether the determination of "state secrets" is legal.The land expropriation compensation plan is legally required to be actively disclosed. Can it be classified as confidential and refused to be disclosed?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The applicant (Zhang Li) claims that:The Water Authority exceeded the deadline, provided incomplete responses, and failed to provide the responses in the required format. We request that you confirm that the responses are illegal and order the authority to resubmit them.

The respondent (A County Water Bureau)'s position:They provided a response, but the content of the response directed the county government to forward the reply, without addressing the substance of the application.

Legal Opinion from Hengluo Law Firm:Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer focused on three major illegal issues: Firstly, the response content seriously deviates from the application - Zhang Li listed 11 items, but the Water Bureau failed to provide a substantive response to each item, and erroneously cited the county government's forwarded response, violating the obligation to respond to each item as stipulated in Article 36 of the Regulations; Secondly, the response was not provided in the form required by the application - Zhang Li requested a hardcopy with a stamped seal, but the Water Bureau only informed him that it could be checked online, and changed the form without providing a legitimate reason, violating Article 40 of the Regulations; Thirdly, the determination of "state secrets" lacks basis - according to Article 47 of the Land Management Law, the land expropriation compensation plan must be announced for public comment for at least 30 days, which is legally required to be actively disclosed. The Water Bureau failed to provide the secrecy determination document and simply refused to disclose it as "sensitive technical information", which violates the secrecy determination procedures stipulated in Article 14 of the Regulations and infringes the right to information and the right to remedy. The lawyer submitted EMS receipts, application forms, and response letters to prove that "they received the application but failed to respond, and the response was not truthful".

IV. Outcome of the case

The People's Government of County A found that: Zhang Li applied on April 24, and the Water Bureau received the application on April 26. However, the reply was not mailed until June 13, which far exceeded the statutory time limit of "20 working days and informing the applicant of the extension" stipulated in Article 33 of the "Regulations on the Openness of Government Information", and the Water Bureau failed to fulfill its obligation to inform the applicant of the extension, making the reply procedure illegal. Given that the respondent had already provided a written reply to the applicant on August 25, 2025, the authority will not order the respondent to provide a new reply. According to Article 65 Paragraph 1 Item 2 of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law", it is decided to confirm that the Water Bureau of County A illegally exceeded the time limit for replying to the applicant's request for disclosure of information.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

In land expropriation disputes, the disclosure of government information is the first and crucial step in safeguarding rights, which can not only supervise the legality of expropriation and verify the compensation standards, but also provide evidence for subsequent review and litigation. In this case,Zhai Chao LiAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202311629788, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ): Reminder: When applying for information disclosure, it is necessary to specify the form (paper mail with a stamped seal) and the specific matters. If the authority exceeds the time limit, provides an irrelevant answer, or evades the request with the excuse of "state secrets", you can request a reconsideration to confirm the violation of the law, and safeguard your right to know and right to remedy.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Land Acquisition and Demolition Cases

  1. Q: Is it reasonable not to disclose the land expropriation information on the grounds of state secrets?
    A: It's generally unreasonable. Compensation plans for land expropriation and other matters that must be announced and solicited opinions in accordance with the law should be actively disclosed. If the government arbitrarily classifies them as confidential and refuses to disclose the information, the decision can be corrected through administrative reconsideration.
  2. Q: What should I do if the response to my request for information disclosure is not what I'm looking for?
    A: You can apply for an administrative review, pointing out that the authority failed to respond to each item and violated Article 36 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, and request that it be confirmed as illegal and ordered to make a new decision.
  3. Q: Is it legal for the administrative authorities not to provide information in the form I requested?
    A: It's illegal. According to Article 40 of the Regulations, the data should be provided in the form requested by the applicant as a priority. Only when the data poses a threat to the security of the carrier or the cost is too high can it be modified and the reasons for the modification should be explained.
  4. Q: How long does it take for information disclosure to be considered illegal after the deadline?
    A: If an answer cannot be provided on the spot, it should be provided within 20 working days. If an extension is needed, it must be approved and notified. If the deadline is exceeded without an extension, the procedure will be considered illegal.
  5. Q: Where can I apply for the public disclosure of the land expropriation approval document and the compensation plan?
    A: Apply to the competent departments such as natural resources and water affairs, specify the specific matters, and request a written reply in paper form. Keep the mailing receipt for easy review and protection of rights.