[Case Summary]This case is an administrative review case of a decision on limited-time demolition. In May 2017, the applicant, Wang **, acquired warehouses, containers, fences, vegetable greenhouses, and other ancillary facilities in the courtyard of Beijing A Co., Ltd. in XXX Town, Daxing District, Beijing City for 750,000 yuan and continued to operate the farming business. In August 2026, the respondent, the People's Government of XXX Town, Daxing District, Beijing City, issued a "Decision on Limited-Time Demolition (Backfilling)" on the grounds that the buildings were suspected of being illegal structures. The applicant entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.I respect and admire you, YiyiThe lawyer initiated an administrative review. The review organ found that the original decision was based on unclear facts, insufficient evidence, and illegal procedures. On October 26, 2026, in accordance with the "Administrative Review Law", the review organ revoked the original demolition decision and eliminated the immediate risk of forced demolition of the buildings involved in the case.

I. Review of the Case

Many business operators are puzzled when facing the identification of illegal construction:How to appeal against the decision of not allowing the demolition of the house,What should we do if there's a one-size-fits-all approach to identifying unauthorized construction?The applicant, Wang **, is a villager of XX County, Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province, and currently resides in the compound of Beijing A Co., Ltd. near the intersection of Qianjin Road and Guangde Road in XXX Town, Daxing District, Beijing City. On May 8, 2017, the applicant acquired the warehouse, containers, fences, vegetable greenhouses, and above-ground trees, among other ancillary facilities, from the third party, Wang ***, for a transfer price of 750,000 yuan, and has been continuously operating a livestock farming business since then.

The building involved in the case was reviewed and confirmed by the Urban Planning and Construction Management Section of XXX Town on February 16, 2012, and obtained the "Enterprise Residence (Operating Site) Certificate", which clearly stated that "the construction approval procedures are complete and it does not belong to illegal construction". The applicant has continuously paid property tax and urban land use tax under the name of Beijing A Co., Ltd., and the house has a legal housing number and land number.

On May 29, 2026, the respondent discovered during an inspection that the buildings involved in the case were suspected of illegal construction and initiated an investigation. On August 3, 2026, the respondent issued the "Decision on Demolition (Backfilling) within a Time Limit", determining that the two brick-and-concrete color-steel structure buildings, two color-steel structure containers, and one auxiliary brick-and-concrete structure fence erected by the applicant constituted illegal construction and ordered their demolition within seven days. The applicant argued that the buildings involved in the case had a legal source and were confirmed by the competent authorities not to be illegal. The respondent, however, applied the 2019 Beijing Urban and Rural Planning Regulation to determine the old buildings as illegal, violating the principle of non-retroactivity of laws and having significant procedural flaws, failing to guarantee the right to make statements, defend oneself, and participate in hearings. On August 25, 2026,I respect and admire you, YiyiThe lawyer represented the applicant in filing an administrative review application with the People's Government of Daxing District of Beijing City.

II. The focus of the case

  • The respondent identified the illegal construction based solely on the reply letter from the planning department. Is there any ambiguity in the facts or insufficient evidence? Can the reply letter be considered valid evidence for identifying illegal construction?
  • The respondent applied the "Beijing Urban and Rural Planning Regulation" implemented in 2019 to determine that the previously constructed buildings were illegal structures. Does this violate the principle that the law does not apply retroactively? This constitutes a mistake in the application of the law.
  • The respondent failed to inform the appellant of their right to make statements, defend themselves, and participate in hearings before determining the illegal construction, and the delivery receipt did not have a witness's signature or supporting images. Was the procedure illegal?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The positions of both parties: The applicant claims that the building involved in the case has a legal source and was confirmed by the authorized authority in 2012 not to be an illegal construction. He requests to revoke the demolition decision and order a re-examination of the case; the respondent, the People's Government of XXX Town, Daxing District, Beijing City, claims that the building involved in the case has not obtained a rural construction planning permit and is an illegal construction, which should be demolished within the time limit.

The legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm is as follows:

Firstly, there is a lack of factual basis for determining the illegal construction. The building in question was acquired in 2017, and the land source is legal with a clear transfer chain. On February 16, 2012, the Urban Planning and Construction Management Section of XXX Town verified and confirmed that "the construction approval procedures are complete and it does not belong to illegal construction", and issued the "Enterprise Residence (Operating Site) Certificate". This planning confirmation document has not been revoked according to law, and it has legal effect, so the respondent should be bound by it.

Secondly, there was a misapplication of the law. The building in question was constructed before the 2019 amendment of the "Beijing Urban and Rural Planning Regulations". The respondent cited the regulations implemented on April 28, 2019 to determine that the old actions were illegal, which violated the principle that the law should not be applied retroactively. Moreover, the respondent applied the new law without first determining the specific construction time of the building.

Thirdly, the procedure was seriously illegal. Before making the decision to limit demolition, the respondent failed to serve the "Rights Notification Letter" and failed to inform the applicant of their rights to make statements, defend themselves, and participate in hearings. In the interrogation transcript, the applicant explicitly stated that "there is a certificate issued by the Planning Department indicating that it is not a violation of building regulations", but the respondent failed to verify and respond to this.

Fourth, the facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient. The respondent did not conduct on-site inspections or surveys before sending a letter to inquire about the building situation, and the information in the letter did not match the results of the later surveys. The planning department's reply specifically stated that "it should only be considered as one of the factors in determining illegal construction", but it was used as the sole basis for the determination.

Fifth, the protection of the legitimate expectations and historical legacy factors were not taken into account. The building in question has been used as a legal business address since 2012. The applicant paid 750,000 yuan to acquire and operate it for many years based on reasonable trust. Now, the requirement to demolish it within a specified timeframe will cause significant economic losses.

IV. Outcome of the case

The review organ found after the trial that the respondent failed to conduct on-site inspections and surveys before sending a letter to the planning department on May 31, 2026 to inquire about the basic situation of the building, which did not match the results of the subsequent on-site inspections. Therefore, the planning department's reply letter could not be used as evidence to determine that the building in question was an illegal construction; and the respondent failed to inform the applicant of his right to make statements and defenses before determining the illegal construction. The delivery receipt stated that the applicant refused to sign it, but there were no witness signatures or video materials to support it. The delivery was also improper, and the procedure was illegal.

On October 26, 2026, the People's Government of Daxing District of Beijing City, in accordance with Article 64 Paragraph 1 (1) and (2) of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China, issued the "Administrative Reconsideration Decision", revoking the "Decision on Demolition (Backfilling) within a Limited Time" issued by the respondent on August 3, 2026. The reconsideration decision rendered the legal effect of the administrative decision null and void, prevented the risk of immediate forced demolition, confirmed the validity of the planning confirmation in 2012, and laid the foundation for the applicant to safeguard their rights in the future.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

When investigating and dealing with illegal construction, it is necessary to ensure that the facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, and the procedures are legal. In the identification of illegal construction, the "first inquiry by letter and then inspection" approach often leads to conflicting evidence and procedural violations such as failing to guarantee the parties' rights to make statements and defend themselves, which is often the most direct and effective way to break through the problem. For historical legacy buildings, it is also necessary to consider the historical background, current management status, and protection of legitimate expectations when they were built, in order to avoid "one-size-fits-all" law enforcement. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.I respect and admire you, YiyiThe case is handled by the attorney (practice license number: 11101202510973791, the document issued by the judicial administrative organ shall prevail) and assisted by the trainee lawyer, Chen Ye.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Cases Involving the Demolition of Illegal Buildings

  1. Q: How to appeal against the decision of forced demolition? A: Within 60 days from the date of receiving the decision of forced demolition, you can apply for administrative reconsideration to the administrative organ at the higher level of the decision-making organ or to the people's government at the same level, requesting the revocation of the original decision and ordering a re-processing of the case.
  2. Q: What should be done if there is a one-size-fits-all approach to identifying illegal construction? A: You can argue that the building has a legal source, the validity of the historical planning confirmation documents, and point out that the facts of the identification are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, and the procedures are illegal. Through administrative review or litigation, you can correct the "one-size-fits-all" identification.
  3. Q: Is it legal to investigate and deal with illegal construction without informing the parties of their rights to make statements and defend themselves? A: It's not legal. Administrative authorities should guarantee the parties' rights to make statements, defend themselves, and request a hearing before making unfavorable decisions. Otherwise, it constitutes a procedural violation and can serve as a basis for revoking the original decision.
  4. Q: Years ago, the town planning department confirmed that it was not a violation of building regulations. Can it still be used now? A: If the planning confirmation document has not been legally revoked, it still has legal effect. When the administrative authority determines that it is a violation of building regulations, it should be bound by it and can be used as an important basis for defense.
  5. Q: How long after receiving the notice of demolition within a specified timeframe will the property be forcibly demolished? A: The demolition notice usually stipulates that the owner must demolish the property within a certain number of days. However, if the decision violates the time limits for reconsideration or litigation, or if the procedure is illegal, the owner can file for reconsideration or litigation to prevent the forced demolition and eliminate the immediate risk of forced demolition.