[Case Summary]This case is an administrative review case arising from the investigation and punishment of illegal land occupation. On April 9, 2026, Dang **, Zheng ** and other 30 villagers from Shuguang Group of Qianjin Town, A City, Shaanxi Province, submitted a "Legal Investigation Application" to the A City Natural Resources Bureau regarding the illegal occupation of collective land in their village by six local enterprises. However, the A City Natural Resources Bureau only issued a transfer notice and did not provide a substantive response. On June 16, 2026, the A City Urban Management Integrated Administrative Law Enforcement Team issued a reply letter in its own name. The 30 villagers subsequently entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for them.Zhang WeiThe lawyer initiated an administrative review, claiming that the subject of the reply letter was not qualified and that the Natural Resources Bureau failed to perform its duties in accordance with the law. The review organ of the People's Government of A City adopted the attorney's opinion and, in accordance with Articles 64 and 66 of the Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China, revoked the reply letter and ordered the A City Natural Resources Bureau to handle the matter again. All of the villagers' review requests were supported.

I. Review of the Case Facts

"The land was illegally occupied by enterprises, but when I reported the case to the Natural Resources Bureau for investigation, I only received a letter shifting the blame. What should I do?" "How to revoke the administrative reply made by the administrative organ beyond its authority in administrative reconsideration?" These are common difficulties in protecting rights when rural collective land rights are infringed. Party * and Zheng * and other 30 people are all villagers of Shuguang Group in Qianjin Town, A City, Shaanxi Province. Due to the illegal occupation of the village's collective land by entities such as "XX Car Dealership, XXX Driving School, FJ Auto Repair Parking Lot, JF Automobile Sales Service Co., Ltd., XXXX Water Supply Equipment Co., Ltd., and HLY Industrial Co., Ltd.," in order to safeguard the collective land rights, on April 9, 2026, the 30 villagers submitted the "Legal Investigation Application Form" to the A City Natural Resources Bureau by EMS, requesting an investigation into the aforementioned enterprises' illegal land occupation. The mailed document was signed for receipt by the A City Natural Resources Bureau on April 11, 2026.

After receiving the application for investigation, the A City Natural Resources Bureau issued the "Situation Statement on the Transfer and Handover of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Functions and Staffing Arrangements of the A City Natural Resources Bureau", stating that the natural resources law enforcement functions and staffing arrangements have been transferred, and the application will be referred to the A City Housing and Urban-Rural Development Management Bureau and the A City Urban Management Integrated Administrative Law Enforcement Team for handling, but no substantive response was provided to the applicants. On June 16, 2026, the A City Urban Management Integrated Administrative Law Enforcement Team issued the "Reply Letter on the Nomination of Litigation Representatives (Dang ** and Others)" in its own name, listing the past administrative penalties for six cases and responding to the villagers' investigation demands.

The villagers were not satisfied with the reply and jointly entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the matterZhang WeiThe lawyer protects the client's rights and interests.Zhang WeiThe lawyer believes that the subject of the reply letter is not qualified, there are errors in factual determination and legal application, and the A City Natural Resources Bureau failed to perform its statutory duties of investigation and punishment according to law. Therefore, the lawyer, on behalf of the villagers, filed an administrative reconsideration request with the A City People's Government, asking for: First, the revocation of the reply letter issued by the A City Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Enforcement Team; Second, the A City Natural Resources Bureau to handle the investigation and punishment matters submitted by the villagers within the statutory time limit and provide a written reply.

II. The focus of the case

  • Is the A City Natural Resources Bureau and the A City Urban Management Integrated Administrative Law Enforcement Team authorized by law to handle the villagers' investigation and punishment applications, and is the subject of the reply letter qualified to do so?
  • Does the Natural Resources Bureau of City A perform its statutory investigation and punishment duties in accordance with the law, and does its referral of the case constitute administrative omission of duty?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The main arguments of the two respondents are: they both claim that they have already performed their duties and that the applicant has no interest in the case. Respondent A, the A City Natural Resources Bureau, argued that the urban management law enforcement team has the qualifications and statutory powers to respond to the case; the applicant has transferred the contracted land to the village collective and has no administrative law interest in the investigation and punishment of the case; the relevant authorities have imposed administrative penalties on six illegal land occupation clues and provided feedback, so there is no administrative omission; the applicant's request to disclose all penalty decisions and challenge the appropriateness of the punishment lacks legal basis; the land occupation fees and compensation for losses belong to civil disputes and should be resolved through civil litigation. Respondent B, the A City Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Team, agreed with the arguments and added that the expression "our bureau" in the reply letter was based on the citation of historical documents and the practice of enforcing the law in the name of the Natural Resources Bureau.

Zhang WeiAfter accepting the client's entrustment, the lawyer sorts out key evidence such as the institutional reform documents, the government's list of powers and responsibilities, the clues to the penalties involved in the case, and the mailing receipts. Then, the lawyer drafts the appeal letter and submits a complete attorney's opinion, focusing on the qualifications of the law enforcement subject, the procedures for performing duties, and the application of the law.

Firstly, the second respondent (the Urban Management Enforcement Team) is not a suitable respondent. The enforcement team is a public institution, not an administrative law enforcement agency, and does not have the right to punish land violations; even if it has imposed administrative penalties, it should use the A City Housing and Urban-Rural Development Administration as the suitable respondent, and has no right to issue a reply letter directly on its own behalf.

Secondly, the reply letter suffers from a confusion of subject identities. The letter repeatedly uses the term "our bureau", but the signatory and stamping entity is the Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Team; and the transfer of authority only took place in 2024, while four of the six administrative penalties involved in the case occurred before 2024. According to the division of powers and responsibilities at that time, the authority that imposed the penalties should have been the A City Natural Resources Bureau.

Thirdly, the six administrative punishment decisions mentioned in the reply letter were not accompanied by evidence, and their authenticity could not be verified, so they failed to achieve the purpose of proof. Some of the punishments only imposed fines, but did not order the return of the land or the payment of land use fees for many years. The content was unreasonable and illegal.

Fourthly, the Natural Resources Bureau of City A failed to perform its duties in accordance with the law. After receiving the application for investigation, the bureau only provided a statement of the situation and forwarded the case, without providing sufficient legal basis for enforcement or giving a formal response to the application. This failed to prove that the urban management law enforcement team had the authority to investigate land violations.

Fifth, according to Articles 67, 68, and 77 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, the natural resources departments of people's governments at the county level and above have the authority to supervise and inspect violations of land management laws and regulations, order the cessation of such violations, order the return of land, and order the demolition or confiscation of buildings within a specified time limit. However, the reply letter stated that the confiscation and demolition powers belong solely to the People's Government of A City, which lacks legal basis for such actions.

IV. Outcome of the case

The review organ of the People's Government of City A held that: According to Articles 67 and 68 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, the Natural Resources Bureau of City A, as the competent authority for natural resources, has the statutory power to supervise, inspect, and handle violations of land management laws and regulations; according to the reform documents, after the Natural Resources Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Team was incorporated into the Urban Management Law Enforcement Team, it should still enforce the law in the name of the Natural Resources Bureau. In this case, the land investigated by the applicant is located in City A, and the Natural Resources Bureau has the authority to handle the case. The Urban Management Law Enforcement Team does not have the statutory authority to investigate the illegal land occupation in this case.

On April 11, 2026, the Natural Resources Bureau received the application. On April 15, after transferring the case for explanation, the bureau failed to respond further. The reform document clearly states that the law enforcement team will continue to enforce the law in the name of the Natural Resources Bureau, and responses made by the law enforcement team on its own behalf cannot represent the administrative acts of the Natural Resources Bureau. On June 16, 2026, the Urban Management Law Enforcement Team issued a reply letter on its own behalf, which exceeded its authority. Accordingly, the People's Government of A City decided in accordance with Articles 64 and 66 of the Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China: First, revoke the "Reply Letter on the Election of Litigation Representatives (Party * * * and others)" issued by the A City Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Team; Second, order the A City Natural Resources Bureau to reprocess the investigation and handling of the applications of Party * * * and others within the statutory time limit from the date of receipt of the decision. All the review requests of the 30 villagers were fully supported.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

Case Note: After receiving an application for investigation of land violations, the administrative authority shall perform its statutory duties in accordance with the law and provide a substantive response, and shall not evade its duties by transferring the case or issuing a letter of reply beyond its authority. When villagers whose collective land rights are infringed encounter a situation where they only receive a letter of blame after reporting land violations, they may, in accordance with the law, file an administrative appeal to revoke the unlawful response and order the original authority to handle the case again. This case was handled by Beijing Hengluo Law Firm.Zhang WeiThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202311579912, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

VI. Common Questions About Administrative Litigation (FAQ)

  1. Q: What should I do if the authorities only transfer the case for handling but fail to respond after reporting illegal land occupation? A: You can apply for administrative reconsideration to the administrative reconsideration organ, requesting that it confirm that the authorities have failed to perform their duties in accordance with the law and order them to handle the case again; or you can initiate administrative litigation within the statutory time limit.
  2. Q: Can the reply letter issued by an administrative organ in excess of its authority be revoked? A: Yes. If the subject of the reply is not qualified or exceeds its statutory powers, the reconsideration organ may revoke the administrative act in accordance with the Administrative Reconsideration Law.
  3. Q: How to initiate an administrative review? A: Within the statutory time limit from the date you become aware of the administrative act, submit a review application and supporting evidence to the review authority with jurisdiction, stating your request for revocation or performance of the administrative act.
  4. Q: How to protect rights when collective land is occupied by enterprises? A: First, you can submit a statutory investigation application to the competent natural resources department; if you are not satisfied with the handling, you can file for reconsideration or litigation, and pay attention to keeping the proof of mailing and the reply documents.
  5. Q: What is the difference between administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation? A: Reconsideration is an internal supervision process within the administrative organ, with a faster procedure; litigation is decided by the court. If you are dissatisfied with the reconsideration result, you can generally initiate litigation. The two processes are interconnected to ensure remedies are available.