[Case Summary]This case is an administrative omission review case triggered by the "swept under the rug" of the application for performance of land expropriation compensation and resettlement duties. The applicant, Liu **, enjoys a legal collective residential land base in Group 6 of Shuguang Village, Qianjin Office, C District, Zhengzhou City, and holds a collective land construction land use certificate. The land where the base is located was approved for expropriation by the People's Government of Henan Province in 2015. On March 18, 2026, Liu ** mailed a "Application for Performance of Legal Duties of Compensation and Resettlement" to the Management Committee of A District of Zhengzhou City. The Management Committee received the materials the same day and transferred them to Qianjin Office the next day, without making any response itself. Liu ** entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Zhai Chao LiThe lawyer applied for administrative reconsideration to the municipal people's government.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer pointed out that "transferring the case to another authority does not mean fulfilling one's duties". The review organ found that the management committee failed to deal with the application for land expropriation compensation and resettlement within the statutory time limit of 60 days, and in accordance with Article 66 of the Administrative Review Law, ordered the respondent to deal with the application within 60 days from the date of receipt of the decision. The applicant's core demands were supported.

I. Review of the case

Applicant Liu ** enjoys a collective residential land base in Group 6 of Shuguang Village, Qianjin Office, Zone C of Zhengzhou City, and holds a valid collective land construction use certificate. As early as 2015, the Henan Provincial People's Government issued a land expropriation approval document, and the land in Shuguang Village where the residential land base is located has been legally approved for expropriation. When the expropriated persons face the dilemma of "what to do if the administrative organ does not respond to the application for land expropriation compensation and resettlement", the law provides an oversight path of administrative reconsideration.

In order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests in land expropriation compensation and resettlement, on March 18, 2026, Liu ** mailed the "Application for Performance of Legal Duties in Compensation and Resettlement" to the Management Committee of Zone A in Zhengzhou, requesting the committee to perform its legal duties in land expropriation compensation and resettlement for the residential land and buildings under his name in accordance with the Land Management Law and local compensation policies, and to ensure that all his rights and interests are fulfilled. After receiving the materials on the same day, the management committee only forwarded them to the Qianjin Office for processing the next day, without making any response itself. Subsequently, although the Qianjin Office issued and mailed the "Decision on Demolition Compensation and Resettlement", this document belongs to the category of demolition compensation and resettlement, which is not the same legal nature as the land expropriation compensation and resettlement applied for by Liu **.

By June 24, 2026, the statutory deadline had long since passed, but the management committee still had not given a formal response or dealt with the application for assuming office. Liu * entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the matter.Zhi Chao LiThe lawyer team filed an administrative reconsideration request with the municipal people's government, requesting that the management committee's failure to respond within the time limit and its refusal to perform its statutory duties of land expropriation compensation and resettlement be deemed illegal, and ordering it to provide a formal written response and perform its duties of compensation and resettlement in accordance with the law. Key timeline: the application was received on March 18, transferred on March 19, a decision was made by the progress office before May 13, the decision was served on May 14, and the application for reconsideration was submitted on June 24.

II. The focus of the case

  • Does the respondent constitute administrative omission? After receiving the application for performance of duties, the respondent only transferred the case to its subordinate units and did not handle it in its own name. Is it exempt from its statutory obligations to respond and perform duties?
  • Is the compensation and resettlement for demolition the same as that for land expropriation? Can the documents from Qianjin Office replace the respondent's response to the applicant's application for land expropriation compensation and resettlement?
  • Has the statutory time limit of 60 days been exceeded? As of the date of the application for reconsideration, the respondent has not dealt with the application for land expropriation compensation and resettlement. Does this constitute an act of omission beyond the time limit?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

Both parties presented their arguments: The applicant, Liu **, claimed that after the Management Committee received his application for land expropriation compensation and resettlement, it had the statutory duty to handle and respond to it according to law. Simply transferring the application to the Qianjin Office cannot exempt itself from its duties, and the transfer of the application does not equal a formal response. The "Demolition Compensation and Resettlement Decision" issued by the Qianjin Office is different in nature from the land expropriation compensation and resettlement applied for, and cannot substitute for it. As of June 24, 2026, the statutory time limit of 60 days has passed, constituting administrative omission. The applicant requested that the Management Committee of Zhengzhou A District be confirmed as having violated the law and be ordered to perform its duties. The respondent, the Management Committee of Zhengzhou A District, essentially used the defense that "the application has been transferred and handled by the office" to justify its failure to respond.

Zhai Chao LiAfter accepting the commission, the lawyer conducted the representation based on the issue of "whether the respondent constitutes administrative omission".

First, fix the key timeline. Sort out the following nodes one by one: receiving the application for assuming office on March 18, 2026; transferring the application to the Qianjin Office on March 19; making a decision by the Qianjin Office on May 13; mailing the decision on May 14; and applying for administrative reconsideration on June 24. This proves that the respondent failed to handle the application in his own name for a long time after receiving it.

Secondly, organize the core evidence. This includes the "Application for Performance of Legal Duties of Compensation and Resettlement", the receipt and processing slip of Zone C in Zhengzhou, the Collective Land Construction Land Use Certificate, the approval document No. Yuzheng Tu [2015] XX1 of the People's Government of Henan Province, the "Decision on Demolition Compensation and Resettlement", the mailing receipt, etc., to form a complete chain of evidence.

Thirdly, put forward the core legal opinions: After receiving the application for performance of duties, the respondent has the statutory duty to deal with and respond to it according to law; transferring the case to the Forward Office does not exempt itself from its duties, and transferring the case does not equal a formal response; demolition compensation and resettlement and land expropriation compensation and resettlement are different forms of compensation and resettlement, and cannot be substituted for each other; as of June 24, 2026, the statutory time limit of 60 days has been exceeded, constituting administrative omission.

IV. Outcome of the case

The Zhengzhou Municipal People's Government held that the case involved administrative omission, and the focus of the dispute was whether the respondent had committed administrative omission after receiving the "Application for Performance of Legal Duties of Compensation and Resettlement". The review organ found that the Henan Provincial People's Government's approval document No. Yuzheng Tu [2015] No.771 dated June 1, 2015 showed that the land where the applicant was located had been approved for expropriation; the respondent received the application for performance of duties on March 18, 2026, requiring it to perform the duties of land expropriation compensation and resettlement for the applicant's homestead and buildings on the land. As of June 24, 2026, the date of the review application, although the Qianjin Office issued the "Decision on Demolition Compensation and Resettlement", the demolition compensation and resettlement and the land expropriation compensation and resettlement were different forms. The respondent failed to respond or handle the applicant's application for land expropriation compensation and resettlement, which exceeded the statutory time limit of 60 days.

The review authority, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 Paragraph 1 of the Implementing Regulations of the Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China on the calculation of the time limit for the application for performance of duties, and in accordance with Article 66 of the Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China, decided to: order the respondent to handle the application for performance of statutory duties of compensation and resettlement mailed by the applicant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this decision. On September 1, 2026, the Zhengzhou Municipal People's Government made an administrative review decision, and the applicant's core demands were supported. The respondent was ordered to perform its duties within a specified time limit.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Zhi Chao LiThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202311629788, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. In this case, by accurately grasping the constitutive elements of administrative omission, the attorney helped the client clarify the boundaries between "transferring the case to a lower authority for handling" and "performing duties", and urged the review organ to order the respondent to handle the case within a specified time limit, laying the foundation for subsequent efforts to secure full compensation and resettlement rights for land expropriation. Reminder: After receiving the application for performance of duties, the administrative organ shall handle and respond to the matter in its own name in accordance with the law. Simply transferring the case to a subordinate unit does not constitute performance of duties. Land expropriation compensation and resettlement are of different nature and cannot be substituted for each other. If there is no response within the time limit, the client may apply for administrative review to order the administrative organ to perform its duties.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Land Expropriation Compensation and Resettlement and Administrative Inaction

  1. Q: What should I do if the administrative authority does not respond to the application for land expropriation compensation and resettlement? A: You can file an administrative review application with the superior authority within 60 days after receiving the application (in the absence of a clear time limit), requesting that the administrative omission be confirmed as illegal and ordering the respondent to take action within a specified timeframe.
  2. Q: Does the administrative organ transferring my application to a subordinate unit count as performing its duties? A: No. Transferring the application does not exempt the organ from its statutory obligation to respond and handle the matter. Only when the organ makes a formal handling or response in its own name is it considered to be performing its statutory duties in accordance with the law.
  3. Q: How is the 60-day review period for administrative inaction calculated? A: Where the law does not stipulate a time limit for performing duties, the review application period shall commence sixty days after the administrative authority receives the application; where there is a clear time limit, the review application period shall commence from the date the time limit expires.
  4. Q: What is the difference between demolition compensation and resettlement and land expropriation compensation and resettlement? A: The two have different legal natures. The former is typically based on demolition projects, while the latter is based on land expropriation approvals. They cannot be substituted for each other. The land expropriation compensation and resettlement applied for by the expropriated persons must be handled separately by the authorized authorities.
  5. Q: Can the party concerned continue to claim compensation after the review organ orders the performance of duties? A: Yes. The decision to order the performance of duties is a procedural supervision result, which lays the foundation for subsequent substantive compensation and resettlement. The party concerned can still claim full land expropriation compensation and resettlement rights in accordance with the law.