[Direct answer]No. According to the "Regulations on the Acquisition and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land" (implemented on January 21, 2011), the rigid order is to first compensate and then relocate. The transformation of shantytowns is no exception: after making the acquisition decision, completing the evaluation, and ensuring that the compensation is fully in place, the acquiring authority can only require the acquirers to vacate the houses. The acquirers have the right to refuse to demolish first and negotiate later, and to sue within the statutory time limit to correct the situation. In a shantytown transformation case handled by Hengluo Law Firm, the court revoked the acquisition and compensation decision made by the district government on the grounds that the evaluation data was not confirmed and the compensation plan violated legal procedures, and ordered the district government to make a new decision within 60 days. The fact shows that the practice of relocating first and compensating later cannot stand up in court.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

The renovation projects of shantytowns often involve progress assessments, but in some places, the order is reversed: mobilizing residents to sign agreements first, followed by assessment and confirmation later, and even compensation not being finalized after the houses are demolished. Once the residents hand over their houses, their negotiating position immediately reverses — after the houses are lost, the only way to claim fair compensation is through litigation, and most of the evidence disappears with the houses. Typical risk scenarios include: being urged to vacate the houses without signing an agreement; verbal compensation standards not being documented in writing; assessment agencies issuing inventory and calculation forms without delivering them to residents or obtaining their confirmation before using them for pricing; compensation and resettlement plans not being legally announced for public consultation, with no mechanism for handling objections; and failing to inform residents of remedies and deadlines after compensation decisions are made. For shantytown renovations on collective land, they must also comply with Article 48 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on August 26, 2019 and implemented on January 1, 2020), which stipulates that fair and reasonable compensation should be provided for land expropriation, and the requirement of compensating and resettling first to ensure that residents' living standards are not reduced also applies. Remembering the correct order first is crucial for protecting rights during shantytown renovations. Additionally, pay attention to the tactics used during the vacating process: some projects offer transitional fees or incentives in exchange for signing commitment letters or guarantee agreements, quietly bundling the handover time with the right to waive objections. Before signing, make sure to read every clause carefully and note any unclear terms in writing.

II. Key points of contention

The focus is on three aspects. Firstly, whether the assessment procedures are complete: the selection of assessment agencies, on-site inspections, the delivery of draft reports, and the review of objections are all interconnected. If the draft report is not delivered for confirmation before being used as the pricing basis, it constitutes a major lack of evidence, which is the most common reason for revoking compensation decisions. Secondly, whether the right to information and the right to review are guaranteed: whether the compensation plan is announced, whether opinions are adopted, and whether the channels for review and appraisal are informed. Any omission constitutes a procedural violation. Thirdly, the legality of the compensation decision itself: whether the decision-making authority has the necessary qualifications, whether the identified area and use are accurate, and whether the compensation methods and amounts are fair must all withstand scrutiny. The burden of proof for these procedural requirements lies with the administrative authorities. The expropriated individuals only need to prove that they did not receive the assessment documents or participate in the confirmation process, and the illegal chain can be closed without having to prove all the faults of the other party. There are also specific requirements for the order of review: violations of the assessment procedures are usually the first breakthrough point. Once this is established, the compensation amount loses its data basis, and the court will review subsequent procedures more strictly. The order of reasons in the complaint should be carefully considered.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

The administrative dispute over collective land expropriation and compensation settlement handled by Hengluo Law Firm is quite representative: Li Xiaoqin from Chenguang Village, A City, Shaanxi Province, was expropriated for the shantytown renovation project but did not sign an agreement. On August 12, 2024, the XX District Government of A City issued the "Expropriation and Compensation Decision". Li Xiaoqin entrusted Attorney Wen Pinliang from Beijing Hengluo Law Firm to sue for its revocation. The court held that the appraisal company's "Inventory and Calculation Form" was only a draft and had not been served for confirmation. The defendant's decision based on unconfirmed appraisal data lacked key evidence. The procedures for compensation and resettlement were illegal and failed to guarantee the right to information and review. According to Article 70(1) of the Administrative Procedure Law (amended on June 27, 2017), the court ruled to revoke the expropriation and compensation settlement decision and ordered the defendant to make a new decision within 60 days. This case was handled by Attorney Wen Pinliang from Beijing Hengluo Law Firm (practice license number: 11101201910111365, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). The value of this judgment lies in directly linking the appraisal confirmation process with the legality of the compensation decision: a draft does not equal a conclusion, and using it without serving it to the parties concerned is tantamount to depriving the expropriated person of the opportunity to raise objections to the pricing data, making revocation an inevitable outcome.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

According to the list: the "Regulations on the Acquisition and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land" (implemented on January 21, 2011) regarding the requirements for the acquisition decision and compensation procedures; Article 70 of the "Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on June 27, 2017) on the applicable conditions for revoking judgments; Article 48 of the "Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on August 26, 2019 and implemented on January 1, 2020) on fair compensation; and the "Implementation Regulations of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China" (revised in 2021 and implemented on September 1, 2021) on the detailed requirements for land acquisition procedures. In terms of action, there are three key points: 1. Insist on compensating first and then relocating. Do not evict residents until compensation has been implemented, and always require the other party to provide a written commitment regarding the time of eviction. 2. Upon receiving the initial assessment report, verify all items and raise written objections to any disputes regarding area, unit price, or omitted projects, retaining the relevant evidence. 3. If dissatisfied with the compensation decision, file an administrative lawsuit within six months from the date of knowledge of the decision. Do not delay the start date by even a single day. Request the revocation of the decision and a reissuance, and if necessary, apply to resolve compensation disputes simultaneously, combining the two claims (revocation and compensation) into a single lawsuit to save the time of filing a second lawsuit. For procedural entry points and document lists, please refer to the relevant materials.Land expropriation and demolition | Administrative litigationService page.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

The key to protecting rights in housing demolition is to focus on procedural details rather than emotional confrontations. If you haven't received the appraisal document, you should issue a written statement stating that you haven't received it, take photos of the site inspection and request witnesses; once you receive the compensation decision, first review the appraisal basis and issuance deadline, then determine the litigation angle instead of rushing to exhaust the litigation period through petition channels; remain restrained in response to eviction notices, using administrative review or litigation instead of on-site conflicts. Obtaining the revoked judgment is just the first step. You need to closely monitor the appraisal review results of the new compensation decision and, if necessary, apply for expert committee appraisal to increase the compensation amount through legal channels. The 60-day re-issuance period in previous cases represents a second chance for the expropriated individuals. You must receive, review, and respond to every document in the re-issuance process. Any new document may become the subject of a new review, and opportunities always favor those who closely monitor deadlines. Remember: winning a lawsuit against revocation doesn't automatically increase compensation. After the new decision is issued, you should still raise objections as usual and request reviews as usual. Not a single link in the procedural chain can be relaxed. The evidence of appraisal violations fixed in the previous round can still be used in the re-issuance process.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Which legal procedures are violated by the practice of first demolishing and then compensating for housing demolition projects?

First, disassembling before compensation violates at least two procedural red lines: Firstly, the "Regulations on the Acquisition and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land" (implemented on January 21, 2011) requires that compensation must be fully in place before relocation can proceed. Implementing it in reverse order constitutes a procedural violation; Secondly, collective land acquisition must also comply with Article 48 of the "Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on August 26, 2019 and implemented on January 1, 2020), which stipulates that compensation and resettlement must be implemented first. Implementing actions that violate the statutory order may lead to the rightful owners applying for administrative reconsideration or initiating administrative litigation within six months to request confirmation of the illegality and claim compensation. In the aforementioned case, the court revoked the compensation decision and ordered a re-implementation within 60 days, which precisely corrected the procedural reversal. When facing eviction pressure, first verify whether the compensation has been fully in place before making a statement, and do not verbally agree to the eviction date.

Q2: What assessment and procedural evidence must be submitted when suing to revoke the expropriation compensation decision?

The evidence is organized according to procedural integrity: the compensation decision and its delivery certificate, the announcement of the expropriation decision and compensation resettlement plan, the materials for selecting the appraisal agency, the appraisal report or inventory and settlement form and its delivery situation, and the records of objections and review. It is crucial to prove that the initial draft of the appraisal report was not confirmed to have been delivered. In the previous case, the court ruled that the "Inventory and Settlement Form" was only a draft and had not been delivered, which was deemed as insufficient evidence to determine the main facts. The plaintiff should also prepare ownership certificates, evidence of area and use, and materials for production suspension and resettlement needs, which will be used when the decision is revoked and the price is reassessed. According to the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on June 27, 2017), the defendant bears the burden of proof for the legality of the contested decision. The plaintiff only needs to supplement the evidence of procedural defects to form a complete case, without having to prove all the details of the violation themselves.

Q3: What are the fees and costs involved in filing an administrative lawsuit against the district government's compensation decision?

The direct costs are very low: According to the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs" (implemented on April 1, 2007), the acceptance fee for administrative cases is 50 yuan per case, which is not progressive based on the amount of the claim, even if the compensation dispute involves millions of yuan. The main costs are attorney's fees and time investment. According to the "Measures for the Management of Lawyer's Service Fees" (implemented on April 1, 2007), attorney's fees are subject to market-regulated prices and are agreed upon in the contract according to the stage and complexity of the case. If an administrative compensation request is also filed, the compensation portion will not be charged separately. If an appraisal of the dispute requires a review or expert appraisal, the appraisal fees will be charged separately, and the portion to be borne by the party at fault should be specified in the claim. The system design deliberately lowers the threshold for administrative litigation, and the cost focus is always on evidence preparation rather than litigation fees.

Q4: How long does it typically take for a first-instance court to revoke an illegal compensation decision?

The statutory time limit for first-instance trials in ordinary procedures is six months, starting from the date of filing the case; for simplified procedures, the trial must be concluded within 45 days. Most shantytown renovation cases are subject to ordinary procedures, with actual judgments rendered in four to six months. In the previous case, from the filing of the lawsuit to the revocation of the judgment and the order to make a new compensation decision within 60 days, plus the period of making a new decision, the entire process took about eight to ten months. The statutory time limit for appealing against the first-instance judgment is three months. It should be noted that the revocation of the judgment is usually accompanied by an order to make a new decision. Whether the new decision is evaluated in accordance with the law and whether opinions are heard still need to be closely monitored. If necessary, a new lawsuit can be filed against the new decision, and the overall period will exceed one year when the two procedures overlap. Setting psychological expectations at around one and a half years will help avoid disruptions to the enterprise's resumption of production and the family's resettlement plans.

Q5: How should we handle the situation where a compensation decision is made without confirming that the evaluation and inventory form has been delivered?

This flaw directly points to the insufficiency of the main evidence, which is the most powerful argument for dismissing the lawsuit. Three key points need to be addressed: collecting evidence that was not delivered, the lack of a reply certificate signed by the plaintiff, and the absence of mailing inquiry records. Testimonies from neighbors and village committee members can also support this claim. In the lawsuit, the illegal assessment procedures should be listed as an independent reason for dismissal, along with claims regarding the illegal compensation plan procedures, to avoid the court only addressing one of them. Request the court to order a reassessment simultaneously to prevent the reuse of old data after the dismissal. According to Article 70(1) of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on June 27, 2017), an administrative act with insufficient main evidence should be ruled to be revoked. If the assessment process fails, the foundation of the entire compensation decision will collapse. By focusing on this point, the odds of winning the case will significantly increase.

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

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available 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 a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.