[Case Summary]This case is an administrative review case concerning the ownership dispute of a residential land plot. The applicants, Liu ** and Wang **, are villagers of Shuguang Village, Qianjin Town, Shunyi District, Beijing City. The residential land plot in question is located at No. 10 Shuguang Street in the village. In 1951, the Hebei Provincial Government issued a "Land and Property Certificate" to confirm the ownership and registration of the land plot, with an area of 1020 square meters (1.53 mu). The land plot has been historically formed and continuously used until now. In 1993, when the former Shunyi County Land Management Bureau issued the "Collective Land Construction Land Use Certificate", it failed to conduct on-site verification, notify the applicants to attend the review, or publicize the information according to law. As a result, the land plot was incorrectly divided and omitted from the registration: about 250 square meters were incorrectly registered under the name of Liu 1 (later inherited by Liu 2), and Liu 3 falsely declared and encroached on about 36 square meters, with about 10 square meters on the east side and about 86 square meters in front of the house omitted from the registration. In 2025, the applicants discovered the errors when checking the archives, and on January 29, 2026, they submitted a mediation application to Qianjin Town People's Government. The town government rejected the application on the grounds that the ownership of the land plot was clear. Beijing Henglu Law FirmSong MeinaThe lawyer represented the client in the administrative reconsideration. According to Article 64 Paragraph 1 Item (1) of the Administrative Reconsideration Law, the People's Government of Shunyi District revoked the "Reply Notice" and ordered the case to be handled in accordance with the law again.

I. Review of the case

In rural areas, many villagers have experienced such anxiety: their homesteads were registered incorrectly, the area was omitted from the registration, and their land inexplicably became smaller. What should they do if their homesteads are registered incorrectly? The applicants in this case, Liu ** and Wang **, encountered such a frustrating situation.

The applicant is a villager of Shuguang Village, Qianjin Town, Shunyi District, Beijing City. The residential land involved in the case is located at No. 10 Shuguang Street. In 1951, the Hebei Provincial Government issued a "Land and Property Certificate" to confirm the ownership, with an area of 1020 square meters, which has been formed historically and used continuously until now. In 1993, when the former Shunyi County Land Management Bureau issued the "Collective Land Construction Land Use Certificate", it failed to conduct on-the-spot inspections, failed to notify the applicant to attend, and failed to publicize according to law. As a result, the applicant's residential land was incorrectly divided and omitted from the registration.

The specific errors and omissions are as follows: About 250 square meters were mistakenly registered under the name of Liu *1 (the father of the applicant Liu *2, who has passed away), and were subsequently inherited by Liu *2; during the process of confirming property rights in 2025, Liu *3 provided false information with the intent to illegally occupy approximately 36 square meters of residential land behind the applicant's house; and the applicant's residential land on the east side of the house, which covers approximately 10 square meters, and the residential land in front of the house, which covers approximately 86 square meters, were not registered. The applicant only discovered the registration errors after checking the archives in 2025.

On January 29, 2026, the applicant submitted the "Application for Dispute Mediation of Rural Residential Land" to the People's Government of Qianjin Town, requesting a comprehensive review of the disputed matters. In March 2026, the town government issued a "Reply Notification", rejecting the application on the grounds that the applicant had already obtained certificates and had clear ownership in 1992. However, the town government failed to conduct a comprehensive review of the disputed matters, provide a response to each item, or verify key evidence. The applicant, who was not satisfied with the decision, appointed Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on his behalf.Song MeinaThe lawyer acted as an agent and filed an administrative review with the People's Government of Shunyi District in Beijing.

II. The focus of the case

  • In 1993, due to illegal registration procedures and the failure to verify and publicize the information, there were cases of incorrect or omitted registrations. Can these cases be used as the sole basis for determining clear ownership rights?
  • After receiving the application for mediation of the dispute over residential land, the town government dismissed it with just one sentence. Does this constitute a failure to fully perform its statutory mediation duties?
  • When there is a conflict between the historical "Land and Property Certificate" and the subsequent erroneous registration, how should we determine the true ownership and safeguard the applicant's right to relief?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

Applicant's request for reconsideration:Revoke the "Reply Notification" issued by the respondent and order the respondent to handle the matter in accordance with the law again.

Song MeinaAttorney's Representation Opinion:

Firstly, the respondent has the statutory duty to mediate disputes over the ownership of residential land. According to Article 14 of the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 5 of the Measures for Investigation and Handling of Land Ownership Disputes, disputes over the right to use residential land between individuals shall be accepted and handled by township-level people's governments. After receiving the application for mediation, the respondent failed to investigate and verify the evidence and directly rejected it, failing to perform its statutory duties in accordance with the law.

Secondly, the reply failed to provide a comprehensive response to the application. The applicant explicitly raised four core disputes: the illegal registration process in 1993, the misregistration of approximately 250 square meters, Liu *3's false declaration and appropriation of approximately 36 square meters, and the omission of registration for approximately 10 square meters on the east side and approximately 86 square meters in front of the house. However, the respondent simply dismissed the claims with the phrase "the ownership is clear", without addressing, reviewing, or providing a rationale for the aforementioned disputes. This constitutes an incomplete response and unclear factual determination.

Thirdly, the ownership of the house was directly identified based on the old certificate, but the facts of the identification were wrong. The "Land and Property Certificate" issued in 1951 was a legitimate historical source of ownership. However, the registered area in 1993 seriously mismatched the historical use and violated legal procedures, so it could not be used as the sole basis for ownership. The residential land inherited by Liu *2 was based on an erroneous registration, and the ownership basis was illegal. Liu *3 was suspected of making false declarations and infringing the applicant's legitimate rights and interests.

The respondent's defense opinion:The People's Government of Qianjin Town argued that the applicant's current application essentially constitutes a repeated application for the confirmation of ownership of the same homestead. The relevant dispute had already been subject to administrative reconsideration, and the current application merely changes the name of the applicant, which does not meet the conditions for accepting the reconsideration. Moreover, according to the reply letter No. 60 [2007] of the Ministry of Land and Resources, it claimed that disputes arising after the issuance of land registration certificates do not constitute disputes over land ownership. The reply in this case is merely a procedural notification and does not have a substantial impact on the rights and obligations of the parties involved. Therefore, it requested to reject the application for reconsideration.

IV. Outcome of the case

The People's Government of Shunyi District found after investigation that: On January 29, 2026, the People's Government of Qianjin Town received the applicant's application for mediation; after reviewing the files, it was found that the housing land involved in the case had a "Collective Land Construction Land Use Certificate" issued in 1993 and a housing land registration card; the village committee issued a statement confirming that Liu ** and Liu **5 recorded in the registration certificate are the same person.

The review organ held that although the respondent conducted an investigation and verification after receiving the application, it merely responded by stating that the applicant had obtained the "Collective Land Construction Land Use Certificate" in 1992, informing the applicant that the ownership of the land use right was clear, which was obviously improper; and the mediation application received by the respondent stated that the applicant included Wang ** and Liu **, but the respondent only responded to Liu ** and did not list Wang ** as the response object, which was obviously improper. Accordingly, the Shunyi District People's Government made a review decision in accordance with Article 64 (1) (1) of the Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China: revoke the "Response Notification" issued by the Qianjin Town People's Government and order the respondent to handle the matter again in accordance with the law. Administrative organs cannot simply dismiss ownership disputes by stating that the ownership is clear, but must conduct a comprehensive investigation, review each item, and respond in accordance with the law.

During the handling of this case, Attorney Song cited Article 14 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 5 and Article 23 of the Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Ownership Disputes, and Article 64 Paragraph 1 Item (1) of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China in accordance with the law, providing the applicant with sufficient legal basis to assert his rights.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

The ownership disputes over residential plots should be claimed in a timely manner. If the registered area does not match the actual one or there are omissions or errors in the registration, the owner should first apply to the township-level people's government for mediation. If the town government rejects the appeal and informs the owner that he/she is not satisfied with the decision, the owner may apply for administrative reconsideration in accordance with the law, request a comprehensive investigation and a response to each item, and never lose the opportunity for relief just because the ownership is clear on paper.

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Song MeinaThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202511880410, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over the Ownership of Rural Homesteads

  1. Q: What should I do if my homestead land is registered incorrectly or its area is omitted from the registration? A: You can first submit an application for dispute mediation of the homestead land to the township-level people's government, requesting an investigation and correction. If you disagree with the town government's rejection of the appeal, you can apply for administrative reconsideration in accordance with the law.
  2. Q: The town government rejected the application for mediation on the grounds of clear ownership. Can there still be remedies? A: Yes. If the response fails to conduct a comprehensive investigation, fails to respond to each item, or fails to verify key evidence, it constitutes a failure to fully perform its duties. In this case, you can apply for administrative reconsideration to request the revocation of the decision and order the government to conduct a new investigation and make a new decision.
  3. Q: If the registration of the house site certificate in 1993 was incorrect, is the old certificate from 1951 still valid? A: The "Land and Property Certificate" issued in 1951 is a legitimate historical source of ownership. However, if the subsequent registration process was illegal or the registered area significantly differed from the actual one, it cannot be used as the sole basis for ownership. The historical use of the property should also be reviewed in conjunction with this.
  4. Q: How should I handle the situation where others falsely declare and encroach on my residential land? A: You can list the encroached area and the facts of the false declaration in the mediation application, and submit the old land ownership certificate and evidence of long-term use. Request the administrative authority to verify and correct the erroneous registration.
  5. Q: Which department should handle disputes over residential plots? A: According to Article 14 of the Land Management Law and Article 5 of the Measures for Investigation and Handling of Land Ownership Disputes, disputes over the right to use residential plots between individuals shall be accepted and handled by township-level people's governments or people's governments at or above the county level.