[Case Summary]This case involvesAdministrative litigation(Notice ordering the demolition within a specified time limit). The plaintiffs, Hu * and Liu *, own legal houses in a certain county of Liaoning Province. On August 29, 2022, the County Transportation Bureau and the Town People's Government issued a "Notice", identifying part of their residential land as state-owned road land expropriated in 1991 and illegal buildings, requiring them to demolish them within 7 days, and threatening to forcibly demolish them and impose fines if they fail to do so within the time limit; on August 30, the defendant drove an excavator into the plaintiffs' homes to demolish the fence. The two plaintiffs entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.\nQiu JuanThe lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit, claiming that the two plaintiffs held the "Contracted Business Right Certificate" and "Real Estate Property Certificate", and that the defendant's determination of the illegal construction process and the substantive content were all illegal. In its defense, the defendant suddenly changed its position, determining that the two plaintiffs' houses were legal buildings and were not within the scope of the demolition notice. The court determined that the houses were legal and had no actual impact on the demolition notice, dismissed the lawsuit and refunded the litigation fees, and the houses were preserved. The core dispute: the determination of the legality of the houses and the actual impact of the demolition notice; applicable legal provisions: Article 81 of the Highway Law and relevant provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law.

I. Review of the case

How to deal with a house being identified as an illegal construction? How to protect one's rights if ordered to demolish it within a specified timeframe? These are frequently asked questions regarding land expropriation and demolition and property preservation. The plaintiffs, Hu * and Liu *, once owned a legal house in a certain county of Liaoning Province. On August 29, 2022, the County Transportation Bureau and the Town People's Government issued a notice stating that the XX Line reconstruction and expansion project had been approved for implementation. The land along the line, which was 12.5 meters wide from the outer edge of the original road and had been expropriated as state-owned road land in August 1991, was no longer village collective land. According to the notice, some of the plaintiffs' residential plots were identified as state-owned road land and classified as illegal buildings. The authorities demanded that the plaintiffs demolish the illegal buildings and structures within seven days to restore the original land condition. If the plaintiffs failed to clear the area within the specified timeframe, the authorities would forcibly demolish it at the plaintiffs' expense and impose a fine of no more than 50,000 yuan on the violators in accordance with Article 81 of the Highway Law. On August 30, 2022, the defendants drove excavators onto the plaintiffs' property to demolish the fence on the residential plot, which the plaintiffs firmly opposed.

After that, Beijing Henglu Law Firm represented the plaintiff in filing a lawsuit with the court.\nQiu JuanThe lawyer believes that the two plaintiffs own legal residential plots and houses in the village and have obtained the Contracted Management Right Certificate and the Real Estate Ownership Certificate in accordance with the law. The defendant deems that the administrative act of identifying the illegal buildings is illegal in both procedure and substance, and seriously infringes the plaintiffs' legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, the plaintiffs request: First, to confirm that the "Notice" issued by the two defendants on August 28, 2022 is illegal; Second, to revoke the "Notice" issued by the two defendants on August 28, 2022.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the two plaintiffs' houses are legal buildings.The plaintiff holds a real estate ownership certificate, and the defendant initially identified the house as an illegal construction. Whether the house can ultimately be confirmed as legal and not subject to demolition is the key to protecting the house.
  • Focus II: Whether the procedures and substantive provisions of the "Notice" for identifying illegal buildings are legal.Is it illegal to determine the residential plots as state-owned road land in 1991 and order them to be self-demolished? Does this violate the procedural and substantive requirements, and affect the effectiveness of the administrative act?
  • Focus Three: Whether the "Notice" has any actual impact on the plaintiffs.If the house is legal and not related to the "Notice", the court may dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that it has no actual impact, but the house can be preserved as a result.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiffs (Hu * and Liu *) allege that:The plaintiff alleges that the two defendants own legal residential plots and houses and have obtained ownership certificates in accordance with the law. The defendant acknowledges that the procedures and substance of the illegal construction are illegal and seriously infringe upon legitimate rights and interests. The plaintiff requests to confirm and revoke the "Notice".

The defendants (the Transport Bureau and the Town Government) argued that:In their defense, the two defendants suddenly changed their tone, stating that after verification, the house for which the two plaintiffs hold real estate ownership certificates is a legal building and is not within the scope of demolition covered by the Notice; the Notice does not violate laws and regulations, and is aimed at parties who have built illegal structures on highway land, not at the owners of legal buildings. It does not have any actual impact on the rights and obligations of the two plaintiffs, so it should not be required to be revoked.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Qiu JuanThe lawyer conducted a rigorous analysis of the case's logic, collected evidence, and presented a well-reasoned defense, pointing out that the two plaintiffs legally obtained the "Contracted Management Right Certificate" and "Real Estate Ownership Certificate". The defendant determined that the illegal building was illegal in both procedural and substantive aspects. With the lawyer's professional efforts, the two defendants recognized that the two plaintiffs' houses were legal buildings and were not related to the interests of the issued "Notice", so they did not need to be demolished, effectively protecting the parties' houses.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that the "Notice" issued by the two defendants did not have any actual impact on the two plaintiffs, as the defendants claimed that the houses owned by the two plaintiffs and registered with the real estate ownership certificates were not within the scope of the illegal construction subject matter covered by the "Notice" in question. Therefore, the specific administrative act in this case does not have any actual impact on the two plaintiffs. In summary, the plaintiffs, Hu * and Liu *, are dismissed from the lawsuit; the litigation fees in this case will not be collected and will be refunded to the two plaintiffs. Thanks to the efforts of Hengluo Law Firm, the houses that were almost demolished have been preserved, and the legitimate interests of the parties have been effectively safeguarded.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.\nQiu JuanAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201811026953, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative authority): Representative. Attorney's advice: If the house receives a "Notice of Ordering Demolition within a Limited Time", do not panic. You should first verify and present ownership certificates such as the real estate ownership certificate, and promptly initiate administrative litigation to prevent forced demolition. If the house is identified as an illegal construction and you want to protect your rights before the forced demolition, it is recommended to entrust a professional lawyer to demonstrate the illegality of the notice and its actual impact, so as to protect your legitimate property.

VI. Common Questions and Answers (FAQ) about Real Estate Construction Project Cases

  1. Q: What should I do if my house is identified as an illegal construction in the notice?
    A:The owner should present ownership certificates such as the real estate ownership certificate, initiate administrative litigation in a timely manner, request the confirmation and revocation of the notice, and prevent forced demolition.
  2. Q: How can I protect my rights if I'm ordered to demolish the building within a specified time limit but I believe the notice is illegal?
    A:It can be argued that the notice is illegal from the perspectives of procedural violations (failure to inform and allow statements and defenses) and erroneous factual determinations (the house is legal), and a lawsuit can be filed against it in accordance with the law.
  3. Q: How to protect the house before forced demolition?
    A:During the limited demolition period, you can file a lawsuit and, if necessary, apply for a stay of execution. At the same time, you should fix the ownership and on-site evidence, and hire a professional lawyer if necessary.
  4. Q: If I have a real estate ownership certificate, will my house not be demolished?
    A:Legally constructed buildings are protected, but they may still be confiscated after being compensated in accordance with the law when they involve the expropriation of public interests such as roads. The key lies in determining whether they are legal or not.
  5. Q: What evidence do I need to prepare for an administrative lawsuit?
    A:The ownership certificates, notification documents, on-site photos, communication records, etc. should be collected, and professional lawyers should be consulted as soon as possible.