[Direct answer]It can be checked. Documents such as land expropriation approval documents, compensation plans, and resettlement lists fall under the scope of proactive disclosure or disclosure upon request. Interested parties can submit written requests for these documents. If their requests are denied or go unanswered, they have legal remedies. In an administrative review case handled by our firm, thirteen farm workers (or their family members) from A County, Hunan Province, who were affected by the government's restructuring of the farm and the expropriation of their land and houses in 2010, entrusted Attorney Wen Pinliang of Beijing Hengluo Law Firm to request the A County People's Government to disclose information such as the restructuring plan, expropriation announcements, and resettlement and compensation plans. However, the county government only responded with a meeting summary and failed to respond after a second request. The review authority ultimately ordered the county government to provide a response within a specified timeframe. Success or failure ultimately depends on the application method and deadline management.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

In the process of land expropriation and rights protection, the most common obstacle for parties involved is information asymmetry: unclear information about the scope of the expropriation approval, the compensation plan, or why a particular household is not included in the resettlement list. The government information disclosure system is designed to address this issue. Typical scenarios include: verifying whether the expropriation approval and public announcements are complete after collective land expropriation; obtaining the compensation plan and household assessment results for state-owned land expropriation; understanding the original basis for land and housing disposal during historical processes such as enterprise reforms or farm transfer; and comparing compensation standards across households when residents suspect inconsistencies. The common feature of these requests is that the information is produced or stored by administrative authorities, making disclosure the most direct way to obtain it. At the same time, the law provides remedies for refusal or evasive responses, such as administrative reconsideration and litigation. Making full use of these institutional mechanisms is far more effective than repeatedly visiting authorities to negotiate in person.

II. Key points of dispute

Regarding the public applications for access to documents, the disputes focus on five points. First, the scope of the application: which documents belong to government information, whether meeting minutes can replace formal announcements, and how to define that the authority has fulfilled its obligations when providing evasive responses. Second, the response deadline: Article 33 of the "Regulations on Open Government Information of the People's Republic of China" (effective May 15, 2019) requires that responses be provided within 20 working days from the date of receipt of the application. Any extension must follow the notification procedures, and failure to respond within the deadline constitutes a failure to fulfill statutory duties. Third, review of the reasons for refusal to respond: if the authority refuses on the grounds that the information does not exist or involves third-party rights, it must explain the search process or the consultation procedures, rather than simply rejecting the request outright. Fourth, application methods and evidence: oral applications lack supporting evidence, and how to handle rejected mailed applications and determine the date of receipt. Fifth, relief coordination: how to calculate the start dates of the administrative review application period and the six-month statute of limitations for administrative litigation in cases of non-response or inaccurate responses. The cases handled by our firm provide a complete demonstration of disputes related to non-responses, which are worth studying in detail for each stage.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

This case involves an administrative review of government information disclosure. Thirteen farm workers (or their family members) from A County, Hunan Province, sought legal protection from Attorney Wen Pinliang of Beijing Hengluo Law Firm in 2014 to verify the legality of the land and housing expropriation and resettlement policies following the government's restructuring of the farm in 2010. On April 18, 2014, the lawyers mailed a government information disclosure request form to the A County People's Government, demanding the disclosure of the restructuring plan, expropriation announcements, resettlement compensation plans, and the list of resettled individuals. However, the county government only replied with a meeting minutes report. The lawyers subsequently requested the disclosure of housing resettlement methods and the list of households receiving housing, but received no response after signing for the documents on June 6, 2014. The core dispute lies in whether the county government's failure to respond violates its statutory duties. The lawyers based their application on Article 33 of the Regulations on Government Information Disclosure of the People's Republic of China regarding response deadlines and administrative review laws, prompting the review authority to order the county government to respond within 20 working days, thereby ensuring the workers' right to information through procedural safeguards. The case is represented by Attorney Wen Pinliang of Beijing Hengluo Law Firm (Practice Certificate No. 11101201910111365, issued by the judicial administrative authority). The practical takeaways from this case are threefold: First, the application form must list the document names item by item, and be mailed via EMS with signed receipt records retained. Second, evasive responses and refusals to respond are treated equally and subject to review. Third, persisting with a second round of applications is necessary, as receiving only meeting minutes in the first round does not absolve the county government of its obligations.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Operation path: First step: Identify the respondent authority. If the document was produced or stored by a specific agency, apply to that agency. For expropriation-related information, the target authorities typically include municipal and county people's governments, as well as natural resources and housing departments. Second step: Fill out a written application form, listing the document name and purpose item by item. Submit the application via EMS (with the details clearly stated and a copy retained), through online platforms on government websites, or in person. In all cases, retain proof of submission. Third step: Monitor the deadline. If there is no response within 20 working days or the response is unsatisfactory, apply for administrative reconsideration promptly from the expiration date. Fourth step: If dissatisfied with the reconsideration decision or choose to sue directly, initiate administrative litigation within six months. The filing fee is 50 yuan per case, payable in advance according to the "Measures for Payment of Litigation Fees" (effective April 1, 2007). Fifth step: After obtaining the documents, compare the compensation plan and resettlement list. If any items are missing or the compensation is abnormally low, proceed to the appraisal review and negotiation process. Legal basis: - Article 33 of the "Regulations on Open Government Information of the People's Republic of China" (effective May 15, 2019); - Requirements for municipal and county governments to disclose expropriation decisions and compensation plans as stipulated in the "Regulations on Expropriation and Compensation of Buildings on State-Owned Land" (effective January 21, 2011); - Provisions on case acceptance scope and litigation time limits in the "Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on June 27, 2017); - Regulations on expropriation information and compensation in the "Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on August 26, 2019 and effective January 1, 2020).

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Information disclosure is the least costly and most effective link in the chain of rights protection during expropriation, but its effective use relies on three key details: the more specific the application content is, the higher the quality of the response will be; the more complete the supporting documents are submitted, the easier it will be to provide evidence for the appeal; and the tighter the time limit is adhered to, the less likely it will be to surrender the initiative to the other party. Two common pitfalls should also be avoided: first, treating information disclosure as a venting channel and applying for dozens of generalized items at once, which leaves the other party with room to argue against the abuse of the right to apply; second, stopping once partial responses are obtained, and continuing to apply for and appeal separately for undisclosed items, as in this case, is the correct way to use the system. For a comprehensive explanation of the rights protection process, please refer to the relevant materials.Administrative litigation over land expropriation and demolitionService page. After obtaining the documents, we will recalculate the compensation according to the resettlement list. This is an issue at the subsequent implementation stage, and we can further coordinate with the lawyer team to handle it.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: After the reform of the farm, what resettlement information can farm workers apply to make public?

All documents related to one's own rights and interests can be applied for. Refer to the list of cases handled by our firm: farm restructuring plans, expropriation announcements, land expropriation approval documents, resettlement and compensation plans, housing resettlement methods, housing delivery lists, resettlement personnel lists, and approval documents for land and housing disposal, etc. When applying, there's no need to apply for too many documents at once. First, focus on the three or four documents directly related to compensation calculation, such as the resettlement and compensation plan and the delivery list. After obtaining these documents, you can then apply for the upstream approval documents. Make clear your interest in the information, such as stating that your house is located within the expropriation scope or that you are an employee of the restructured unit. Defining your interest in the information can reduce the likelihood of being rejected. Responses to inquiries in the form of meeting minutes instead of official documents are considered incomplete. In this case, you can separately apply for the missing documents again. If there's still no response to the second application, you can apply for administrative reconsideration within 60 days, and the reconsideration authority will order the respondent to provide a response within a specified time limit.

Q2: What are the provisions regarding the response deadline in the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information?

Article 33 of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information of the People's Republic of China" (effective May 15, 2019) requires that: responses shall be provided on the spot if possible; if not, responses shall be provided within 20 working days from the date of receipt of the application; where an extension is necessary, with the approval of the responsible person and upon informing the applicant, the extension period shall not exceed 20 working days; the time required for soliciting the opinions of third parties, etc. shall not be included in the calculation. The response forms shall include written or recognizable electronic methods. Where the applicant requests a written response, the response shall be provided in accordance with his/her request. Accordingly, the date of receipt of the application is the starting point of the time limit, and the mailing of the application shall be deemed to be received upon signature. This is also the significance of keeping the receipt voucher. Where no response is provided within the time limit, the time limit for seeking remedies through reconsideration and litigation shall be calculated from the date of expiration of the time limit. It is recommended to record two dates in the filing system: the date of submission and the date of expiration of the time limit. Remedies can be initiated on the day of the time limit expiration.

Q3: After the application for expropriation is rejected, which path should one choose between appeal and litigation?

First, opt for administrative reconsideration, and then decide whether to file a lawsuit based on the outcome. The advantages of reconsideration include three aspects: low acceptance threshold, short review period, and the ability to directly order the administrative organ to fulfill its duty of replying within a specified time limit. In this case, the reconsideration authority ordered the county government to reply within 20 working days, which is a good example. The advantages of litigation include the finality and enforceability of the judgment, which is suitable for situations where the reconsideration maintains the refusal to reply or the reconsideration exceeds the statutory time limit; for direct litigation, the acceptance fee is 50 yuan per case, which is prepaid in accordance with the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees" (implemented on April 1, 2007), and the six-month litigation period starts from the date when the applicant knows the refusal to reply or the expiration of the reply period. Most disputes over expropriation-related information can be resolved at the reconsideration stage, and administrative organs usually cooperate with the reconsideration authority when faced with such orders. For those who are unsure, it is advisable to submit the refusal to reply document and the application certificate to a lawyer for evaluation before deciding on the next step, so as to avoid being stuck in a blind alley.

Q4: Which method should be used to submit an application for information disclosure and retain the proof of service?

It is recommended to use the dual-track approach of EMS mailing and online platforms. When mailing, indicate in the item name column of the detailed list the "Government Information Disclosure Application Form" and the main application items, retain the mailing receipt, and check the tracking and receipt records on the official website; the receipt becomes the starting point of the 20-working-day response period under Article 33 of the "Regulations on Government Information Disclosure of the People's Republic of China" (effective May 15, 2019), and it is also the core evidence for appeal and litigation. For on-site submissions, the receiving department is required to stamp and note the receipt date on the copy of the application form; for online submissions, screenshot and save the successful submission page and the query number. For rejected submissions: resend by registered letter and indicate that the submission was rejected. The rejection record will be recorded, and it will not affect the determination of the starting point of the time limit. Avoid only using telephone or oral applications, as such methods cannot leave evidence, and if the other party says they haven't received it later, the applicant will be put in a dilemma of proving their case.

Q5: What legal consequences will the county government face if it fails to respond to an application after receiving it?

The consequences can be divided into three layers. At the procedural level, failing to reply within the time limit constitutes a failure to perform statutory duties, and the applicant may apply for administrative reconsideration within 60 days. After verification by the reconsideration organ, the organ may order the respondent to reply within a certain time limit. In this case, the respondent was ordered to reply within 20 working days. The applicant may also file an administrative lawsuit within six months in accordance with the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on June 27, 2017) to request a judgment ordering the respondent to perform the duty of replying within a specified time limit. At the substantive level, if the respondent still fails to reply or provides an obviously perfunctory reply after being ordered to do so, the relevant responsible persons may face administrative accountability, and in serious cases, they may be held accountable in accordance with the supervision system for the disclosure of government information. At the compensation level, if the refusal to reply results in the party missing the time limit for appealing for compensation or causing quantifiable losses, the party may claim corresponding compensation, but it is necessary to prove the causal relationship. For the party concerned, the most important thing is to fix the failure to reply as evidence: the receipt record, the reminder letter, and the date of the expiration of the time limit. All three layers of consequences start from this point.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. The adjudication standards 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 Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open 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. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.