[Case Summary]This case involves the confirmation of the illegality of the forced demolition of a house in Jiamusi City. The wooden structure shed attached to the house at No. 1565 in a certain district of Jiamusi City, which Ms. Zhou inherited, was forcibly demolished by the Urban Management Bureau on the grounds of safety hazards. The first-instance court rejected the claim on the grounds that the shed did not meet the basic attributes of a house and that the forced demolition was legal. Ms. Zhou entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.文品良The lawyer appealed. The core dispute is whether it is legal to demolish buildings within the scope of expropriation under the guise of demolishing illegal construction, and whether the forced demolition complied with legal procedures. Applicable laws: Articles 34, 37, and 44 of the Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China. The second-instance court found that the Urban Management Bureau only issued a "Notice of Ordering Rectification", but failed to perform procedures such as urging compliance and making a decision on forced execution. The forced demolition process was illegal, and the first-instance judgment was revoked and the judgment was changed to confirm that the forced demolition was illegal.

I. Review of the Case Facts

The house was located within the scope of the demolition, but was forcibly demolished as an "illegal construction". The parties most concerned about are "Is it legal to use demolition of illegal buildings to promote demolition?", "How to confirm that forced demolition is illegal?", "Do illegal buildings within the scope of demolition also need to be compensated?", and "Beijing Hengluo Demolition and Acquisition Lawyers". Ms. Zhou's parents purchased the house at No. 1565 in a certain district of Jiamusi City in 1990, along with a 47-square-meter wooden structure house and a 44-square-meter yard. The wooden structure house was built in the 1960s or 1970s. After her parents passed away, Ms. Zhou inherited the property. On July 3, 2023, grid staff identified the shed as having safety hazards; on August 20, the Urban Management Bureau issued a "Notice of Order to Rectify Violations" and delivered it by leaving it at the property; on August 25, the shed was forcibly demolished and the items inside were sealed for evidence. Ms. Zhou's petition failed, and she learned that the house involved in the case had long been within the scope of the shantytown renovation and demolition. Therefore, she entrusted Beijing Hengluo Law Firm to handle the case.文品良The lawyer defends the rights and interests of his client.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Which administrative act is being sued for?The case being sued in this instance involves the forced demolition carried out by the Urban Management Bureau, rather than a simple notice to rectify violations.
  • Focus Two: Whether the forced demolition complied with legal procedures.Is it a violation of the Administrative Enforcement Law to only issue a "Notice to Correct Violations" without urging compliance or making a decision on enforcement?
  • Focus 3: Is there a purpose of "using demolition of illegal buildings to promote expropriation"?Within the scope of the expropriation, is it legitimate for the administrative authorities to use demolition of illegal buildings to advance the expropriation and evade compensation?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (the person subject to expropriation) claimed that:Ms. Zhou argued that the wooden structure house involved in the case has been in existence for several decades and is a historical legacy, not an illegal construction. Moreover, within the scope of the expropriation, it should be compensated in accordance with the expropriation and demolition policies, and the forced demolition lacks factual and legal basis.

The defendant (the Urban Management Bureau) argued that:The objects of demolition are temporarily built wooden sheds and houses that do not have residential functions, which are unrelated to the housing expropriation. The "Notice to Make Corrections" has been served through withholding and telephone notification, and the procedure is legal.

Legal Opinion from Hengluo Law Firm:Wen Pinliang is a talented writer who has made outstanding contributions to the development of Chinese literature.The lawyer appealed against the first-instance judgment on the basis of errors in the facts and the application of the law, with the main reasons being:

  • The original trial court misidentified the administrative act being sued and the subject matter of the case, and the defendant was the forced demolition action taken by the Urban Management Bureau;
  • Whether it is a house or not, forced demolition should comply with the statutory procedures of the "Administrative Enforcement Law";
  • The application of Article 36 Paragraph 2 of the "Regulations on Urban Appearance and Environmental Sanitation Management" in the original trial constitutes a legal misapplication;
  • The "Notice of Order to Make Corrections" was served by detention, which did not meet the statutory prerequisites, and the service procedure was illegal;
  • The notice does not set out the consequences of not making corrections within the time limit, and the demolition is unfounded in fact;
  • The building involved in the case is within the scope of expropriation, and the administrative organ has the improper purpose of promoting expropriation by demolishing illegal buildings;
  • The Urban Management Bureau clearly knew that Ms. Zhou was not in the local area, but still gave her only three days to make corrections, which is obviously unreasonable.

IV. Outcome of the case

The appellate court held that the forced demolition constituted administrative coercion, and whether the target was a house or a shed, it should be carried out in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Administrative Coercion Law of the People's Republic of China. According to Articles 34, 37 (1), and 44 of the Administrative Coercion Law, the Urban Management Bureau only issued a "Notice of Order to Rectify" before the forced demolition, and failed to perform procedures such as giving a reminder and making a decision on enforcement, which constituted a procedural violation. The appellate court revoked the judgment of the first-instance court and ruled that the administrative act of the Urban Management Bureau in forcibly demolishing Ms. Zhou's house was illegal.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

"Using demolition to facilitate expropriation" is a common misunderstanding in the process of expropriation. This case was handled by Beijing Hengluo Law Firm.文品良The attorney (practice license number: 11101201910111365, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's advice: When historical buildings within the scope of expropriation are identified as illegal buildings and subject to forced demolition, the demolition process is often illegal. In such cases, it is necessary to promptly fix the evidence, file an administrative lawsuit to confirm the illegality of the forced demolition, and lay a foundation for subsequent negotiations on compensation or compensation.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Land Expropriation and Forced Demolition Cases

  1. Q: Is it legal to use demolition of illegal buildings to facilitate expropriation?
    A:It's illegal. Buildings within the scope of expropriation should go through the expropriation compensation process. If the demolition is used to evade compensation and the legal procedures for forced demolition are not followed, it can be confirmed as illegal.
  2. Q: How to confirm that forced demolition is illegal?
    A:An administrative lawsuit can be filed to request confirmation that the forced demolition is illegal; the focus of the review is whether the procedures stipulated in the "Administrative Enforcement Law", such as issuing a notice, making a decision on forced enforcement, and announcing the decision, have been followed.
  3. Q: Are historically preserved houses considered illegal buildings?
    A:When purchasing or constructing a building, if it complies with the regulations at that time, it is often a historical legacy issue. It cannot be simply identified as an illegal construction based on current standards, and forced demolition must be carried out in accordance with the law.
  4. Q: What documents must be delivered before forced demolition?
    A:It should at least include a notice ordering rectification, a reminder, a decision on enforcement, and a public announcement. It is illegal to proceed with forced demolition based solely on a single notice, which violates the normal demolition procedures.
  5. Q: Can I still demand compensation after confirming that the forced demolition is illegal?
    A:Yes. Confirming the illegality is a prerequisite. Subsequently, you can claim administrative compensation or negotiate compensation with the expropriator to safeguard the rights and interests of your house and belongings.