[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, to determine whether the compensation and resettlement plan is complete, it can be checked from three aspects. Firstly, whether all statutory compensation items are listed. According to Article 48 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2019 and implemented on January 1, 2020), the standards for land compensation and resettlement assistance for agricultural land expropriation shall be determined by the provincial-level government based on the comprehensive land price of the area; for the expropriation of rural villagers' residences, compensation shall be provided in a fair and reasonable manner in accordance with the principle of "compensation first, relocation later, and improvement of living conditions", and the expenses for relocation and temporary accommodation shall also be compensated; at the same time, social security expenses for the expropriated farmers shall be arranged. Secondly, whether the procedures are legal. The order of plan formulation, announcement, and land expropriation notice shall comply with the requirements of the Implementing Regulations of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2021 and implemented on September 1, 2021), and ensure the right of the expropriated persons to be informed, participate, and appeal for relief. Thirdly, whether the evaluation process is transparent. The selection of evaluation institutions shall be carried out in accordance with the law, and the evaluation report shall be delivered to the expropriated persons and their rights to apply for review and appraisal shall be guaranteed. Compensation decisions made solely on the basis of the initial draft data that have not been confirmed by delivery may be deemed to lack sufficient evidence. According to Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2017), an administrative act with insufficient evidence may be ruled to be revoked.Land expropriation and demolition, and administrative litigationYou can view similar questions in this column.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

When the requisitioned party raises this question, it usually stems from several circumstances: First, the compensation plan only provides one method of monetary compensation, without mentioning the relocation of the homestead for housing construction or the provision of resettlement housing; Second, there is an appraisal conclusion for the decoration and ancillary facilities, but there is no formal appraisal for the main building; Third, the appraisal report, the appraisal recommendation notice, and the recommendation form were never delivered, and the requisitioned party had no knowledge of the appraisal process; Fourth, the plan cites compensation methods from several years ago, with standards significantly lower than current market prices; Fifth, the announcement of the plan was reversed in order with the land expropriation notice, and the requisitioned party entered the consultation process without being fully informed. When handling such cases in the Beijing area, the authorities usually first review whether the basis for making the compensation decision is legal, whether the appraisal process is transparent, and whether the compensation plan complies with the compensation methods and protection principles stipulated in the Land Management Law. Then, they determine the possibility of revoking and making a new decision. For supporting issues involving the ownership and area identification of the house, they can also refer to them together.Real estate transactions and construction projectsColumn.

II. Key points of dispute

Focus One: Whether the compensation items are complete, including land compensation fees, resettlement assistance fees, housing compensation, relocation fees, temporary resettlement fees, compensation for fixtures and seedlings, and social security expenses. Focus Two: Whether the compensation methods have been improperly restricted, and whether legal methods such as rearranging residential plots for housing construction or providing resettlement housing have been excluded. Focus Three: Whether the evaluation process is transparent, whether the selection of the evaluation agency is legal, and whether the evaluation report has been delivered and the right to review and appraise has been guaranteed. Focus Four: Whether the compensation standards apply the latest results, and whether the cited compensation methods are outdated. Focus Five: Whether the drafting and announcement of the plan comply with legal procedures, and whether the right to information and the right to objection are guaranteed. Focus Six: Whether the basis for making the compensation decision is sufficient, and whether unconfirmed data can be used as a basis. Focus Seven: The choice of remedies, including administrative reconsideration, administrative litigation, and requests to revoke and order a new decision. Specific determinations shall be based on the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

Take an administrative dispute over collective land expropriation and compensation and resettlement represented by Attorney Wen Pinliang of our firm as an example: The plaintiff, Li Xiaoqin, is a villager of Chenguang Village in a certain district of Shaanxi Province. Her courtyard has been the long-term residence of her entire family. Since 2022, the district government has repeatedly negotiated with Li Xiaoqin for the evacuation of her residence due to the shantytown renovation project. However, Li Xiaoqin refused to sign the agreement due to the lack of transparency in the procedures and unreasonable compensation standards. On April 11, 2022, the district government announced the expropriation decision, which was subsequently confirmed as illegal by the intermediate people's court and upheld by the higher people's court. On August 12, 2024, the district government issued a decision on collective land expropriation compensation and resettlement to Li Xiaoqin, offering two options: property exchange and monetary compensation. Li Xiaoqin argued that the decision was based on an expropriation decision that had been confirmed as illegal by effective judgments and should not be used as the basis for the compensation decision. Attorney Wen Pinliang focused his representation on four aspects: First, the compensation decision relied on an expropriation decision that had been confirmed as illegal by effective judgments and should not be used as the basis for the compensation decision; Second, the evaluation process was not transparent. The plaintiff never saw the evaluation recommendation notice, received the recommendation form or the evaluation report, and effectively lost the right to review the evaluation process and results; Third, the compensation and resettlement plan violated procedural laws. The plan's formulation and announcement were out of order with the statutory sequence of the land expropriation announcement, depriving the plaintiff of the right to raise objections and seek remedies; Fourth, the compensation plan was unfair in substance. According to Article 48 of the Land Management Law, there are multiple compensation methods, but the plan excluded the rearrangement of homesteads for housing construction, evaluated decorations and ancillary facilities but not the main buildings, and predefined and cited outdated compensation methods years ago, violating the principle of ensuring that the original living standards of expropriated farmers are not reduced. The court held that, although the selection of the evaluation agency complied with the rule of the majority prevailing over the minority, the evaluation company's inventory and calculation form was only a draft and had not been served to the plaintiff or confirmed by her. It could not be used as the basis for the compensation decision. The defendant's decision based on unconfirmed evaluation data constituted a lack of main evidence. The major flaws in the evaluation process led to the lack of factual basis for the compensation decision, and the defendant failed to guarantee the plaintiff's right to information and review. Considering that the value of the house still needs to be appraised by the administrative authority, there is discretionary space in this case and it is not appropriate to make a direct judgment. Therefore, in accordance with Article 70 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the court decided to revoke the expropriation compensation and resettlement decision and ordered the defendant to make a new decision within 60 days from the effective date of the judgment. This case clearly shows that whether the compensation project is complete and the evaluation process is transparent is the core focus of reviewing the legality of the compensation plan. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.文品良Attorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201910111365, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting as an agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action suggestions: First, check the compensation list item by item. Compare the costs of land, housing, relocation, temporary resettlement, fixtures and seedlings, social security, etc. one by one to determine whether there are any omissions. The relevant ownership and area materials can be referred to for referenceProperty sales and construction projects1. Columns; 2. Actively request evaluation materials, including the selection documents of the evaluation agencies, evaluation reports, and inventory records. If the materials are not delivered, you can request them in writing and keep the relevant proofs; 3. If you have objections to the evaluation conclusions, you can apply for a review of the evaluation or request an appraisal within the statutory time limit; 4. Review the order of the announcement and the announcement of the plan. If you find any procedural errors, you should raise objections in a timely manner; 5. After receiving the compensation decision, pay attention to the statute of limitations for litigation and consult professional lawyers as soon as possible to initiate administrative review or administrative litigation; 6. Claim for the revocation of the decision and order a re-evaluation, rather than simply refusing to negotiate. Legal basis: Article 47 and Article 48 of the "Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended in 2019 and implemented on January 1, 2020); the provisions on expropriation procedures and compensation and resettlement in the "Implementing Regulations of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended in 2021 and implemented on September 1, 2021); Article 70 of the "Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended in 2017); and the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

First, whether the compensation plan is complete depends on whether all statutory items are listed, rather than just looking at the total amount. Second, the compensation methods cannot be improperly restricted. Re-arranging the homestead for construction, providing relocation housing, and monetary compensation are all statutory methods. Third, the evaluation process is the factual basis for the compensation decision. If the report is not delivered or the data is not confirmed, the compensation decision may be revoked. Fourth, a plan that cites outdated compensation methods or standards that are obviously too low can be used as one of the reasons for seeking revocation. Fifth, after receiving the compensation decision, it is necessary to pay attention to the statutory deadlines for appeal and litigation. Delaying may lead to the loss of remedial opportunities. Sixth, such disputes involve both procedural and substantive reviews. It is recommended to hire professional lawyers as soon as possible to sort out the illegal points item by item and organize evidence.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What items are generally included in the compensation for expropriation?

According to Article 48 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, it usually includes land compensation fees, resettlement assistance fees, compensation for rural villagers' housing, relocation and temporary resettlement expenses, compensation for fixtures and seedlings, and social security expenses for farmers whose land has been expropriated.

Q2: Is it legal to only offer monetary compensation and not arrange housing plots for the residents in the resettlement plan?

This may be illegal. The article clearly stipulates that the villagers' wishes should be respected, and fair and reasonable compensation should be provided through methods such as rearranging housing plots for building houses, providing resettlement housing, or monetary compensation. Directly excluding legal methods may constitute substantive injustice.

Q3: Is the compensation decision valid if I haven't received the evaluation report?

There is a risk of being revoked. If the evaluation data is only a draft, has not been delivered, or has not been confirmed by the taxpayer, it cannot be used as the basis for the compensation decision. The decision made based on this may be deemed to lack sufficient evidence.

Q4: Is it reasonable to use the regulations from many years ago as the compensation standard?

This may not be reasonable. If the compensation method cited is outdated and the standards obviously do not adapt to the current economic level, it may be considered as outdated standards and manifestly unfair, which can be used as one of the reasons for requesting its revocation.

Q5: What should I do if I disagree with the compensation decision?

You should apply for administrative reconsideration or initiate administrative litigation within the statutory time limit, requesting the revocation of the decision and ordering a new one; it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible after receiving the decision to avoid losing the opportunity for relief due to exceeding the time limit.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudication guidelines in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Land expropriation and demolition legal services·Attorney Wen Pinliang·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.