[Direct answer]Yes. The "Regulations on the Acquisition and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land" (implemented on January 21, 2011) explicitly includes the losses caused by the suspension of production and business due to the acquisition of houses in the scope of compensation. Although enterprises leasing factory buildings are not the owners of the houses, they actually bear the losses caused by the suspension of production and have the right to receive corresponding compensation. The problem lies in the implementation process: the acquirer only negotiates with the property owners, and the compensation agreement packages the losses caused by the suspension of production to the property owners, leaving the tenants with nothing. The leasing enterprises need to take the initiative - apply in writing to list themselves as the objects of compensation, urge the lessors to list the losses caused by the suspension of production in the agreement, and apply for information disclosure to clarify the details of the compensation when necessary. By making full use of procedural rights, there will be a basis for obtaining substantive compensation.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

The losses from production shutdown and business suspension of leased factories often account for the highest proportion of total corporate losses: equipment downtime, order breaches, continued payment of employee salaries, and zero income during relocation and reconstruction. However, lessees are often not included in compensation lists—expropriation decisions are made against property owners, and compensation agreements are signed by property rights holders, leaving lessee enterprises caught between landlords and expropriation authorities. Three common scenarios arise: compensation plans failing to list production suspension losses; listing such losses but calculating compensation based on property rights certificate area, resulting in underestimation of actual operating space; and compensation being paid to property rights holders in a lump sum, with tenants being denied compensation under lease agreements. The root cause of all three lies in lessees having no formal standing in compensation procedures—they can only seek compensation through litigation after the fact. Factory buildings on collective land also involve compensation arrangements for attached structures under the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on August 26, 2019 and implemented on January 1, 2020), with even more complex regulatory frameworks. The first lesson for lessee enterprises is to distinguish between two legal tracks: pursue administrative litigation against expropriation authorities for compensation disputes, and civil litigation against landlords for distribution disputes. Both tracks should run concurrently and share evidence. Success in either track can bolster the other. Additionally, attention should be paid to lease term issues: where leases remain valid, losses of future benefits during the remaining term should also be included in compensation claims. The signing date of the lease contract and rental payment receipts determine the starting point for loss calculation. Such materials should be properly archived at the time of signing, rather than being disorganized only after the expropriation notice is posted.

II. Key points of contention

The controversy focuses on two aspects: eligibility for compensation and the amount of compensation. On the eligibility front, whether lessees can directly participate in the compensation process and file lawsuits independently depends on whether they have a vested interest in the expropriation. The supporting points are operational leases and the authenticity of losses. On the amount front, determining the duration of production suspension (from the date of suspension to the resumption of production or completion of relocation), calculating the average monthly profit (based on tax records, audit reports, and comparisons with the same period), and determining who should bear the costs of equipment relocation and employee resettlement are all sticking points. Asymmetric information exacerbates the passive situation: expropriation approvals, compensation plans, and appraisal details are not disclosed, leaving lessees in the dark about the compensation amounts. This makes negotiations and litigation difficult without a clear baseline. Therefore, information requests and administrative appeals are key entry points. Only by obtaining detailed information can lessees understand what to dispute and how much to claim. Determining the duration of production suspension in particular requires advance preparation: the start and end dates from the date of suspension to the resumption of production or completion of relocation must be supported by written evidence, and handover documents and resumption inspection records should be preserved. Orally determined timeframes will not hold up in reviews.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

A land expropriation and demolition administrative review case handled by Hengluo Law Firm demonstrates the leverage effect of information procedures: Liu ***, a villager from Group 1 of Shuguang Village, XX Town, H City, whose legal house was included in the expropriation scope due to the construction of the F to S high-speed railway but received no compensation, entrusted He Ningning, a lawyer from Beijing Hengluo Law Firm, to safeguard his rights. On September 23, 2025, Liu applied to the H City People's Government for disclosure of seven core land expropriation information, but the city government refused to disclose the information on the grounds of "the house not being expropriated and the information not existing". The core dispute is whether the administrative organ's evasion of disclosure obligations based on "non-existent information" is valid. Applicable legal provisions: Articles 26, 28, and paragraph 4 of Article 32 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). The lawyer filed two administrative review applications. In the second review (on April 14, 2026), the review organ ruled that the respondent failed to fulfill its statutory obligations to disclose government information and ordered the provision of land expropriation announcements and other information. This case was handled by He Ningning, a lawyer from Beijing Hengluo Law Firm (practice license number: 11101202511925103, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative authority). This case shows that it's not uncommon for expropriators to evade disclosure obligations by claiming "non-existent information", but the review of statutory disclosure obligations by the review organ is substantive. Through a list-based application for seven pieces of information and continuous follow-up on two rounds of review, the expropriated party ultimately obtained all the necessary basic information. For leasing enterprises, this approach can be directly applied: the amount of production loss compensation, the evaluation criteria, and the recipients of compensation are all contained in the compensation details, and the objects and scope of the disclosure request can be listed directly.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Based on the legal basis and procedures: - The losses from production and business suspension are listed as compensation items in the *Regulations on the Acquisition and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land* (effective January 21, 2011); - To urge the public disclosure of land expropriation information, relevant provisions include Articles 26 and 28 of the *Implementing Regulations of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China* (amended in 2021 and effective September 1, 2021); - The procedural safeguards for appeals and litigation come from the *Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China* (amended on June 27, 2017). Action recommendations should be implemented in sequence: - Check whether the lease contract includes compensation distribution clauses. If not, sign a supplementary agreement with the lessor as soon as possible; - Submit a written application to the expropriator to list the leased enterprise as a compensation object and attach a list of losses; - Request the public disclosure of the expropriation announcement, compensation plan, and compensation details. If rejected, apply for administrative reconsideration in turn; - Immediately archive the operating data of the past three years before the production suspension, and share it during negotiations and litigation. - If the expropriator refuses to accept the application on the grounds that the lessee is not the property owner, retain the evidence of the refusal as proof of their refusal to fulfill their compensation obligations, which can be used in both reconsideration and litigation. - For service path, please refer to the attached document.Land expropriation and demolition | Administrative litigationService page.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

The materials for calculating production losses should be prepared before the production is halted: tax declarations for the past three years, utility bills, payrolls, and existing order contracts, which are common evidence in negotiations and litigation. If the compensation details are not disclosed, proceed with a combination of information requests and administrative reconsideration. Previous cases have shown that reconsideration authorities will order compliance, and patience in completing two rounds of procedures will ultimately yield crucial evidence. Disputes over compensation distribution with landlords fall under civil litigation and can be sued separately, without conflicting with administrative procedures. When facing coercive eviction tactics such as cutting off water and electricity, avoid direct confrontation. Immediately record audio and video to fix evidence and convert them into illegal points in reconsideration or litigation. Separately file evidence of coercive eviction and production losses. The former is used for procedural counterattacks, while the latter is used for claim amounts. Do not mix the two chains of evidence in the same folder. Ultimately, the bargaining power of the lessee depends on the completeness of their operational evidence. Companies with clear accounts are more confident at every negotiation table. Finally, a reminder: regardless of the legal path chosen, strict adherence to time limits is essential. Information requests, reconsideration, and litigation each have statutory deadlines. Any delay in any step will render the previously collected evidence useless.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the leasing enterprise directly claim the losses of production and business suspension from the expropriator?

It can be argued that there are two paths. The direct path: Submit a written compensation application to the expropriator in the capacity of the actual operator and interested party, attaching the lease contract, business license, and tax payment records to prove the attribution of the losses; The indirect path: Urge the lessor to list the production suspension losses separately when signing the contract, and then distribute them according to the lease contract or file a lawsuit separately. According to the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land" (implemented on January 21, 2011), production and business suspension losses belong to statutory compensation items, and the expropriator cannot refuse them on the grounds that the lessee is not the owner of the property. If the expropriation decision or compensation plan completely ignores the operating losses, the lessee enterprise can apply for reconsideration or initiate administrative litigation within the time limit, and leave the issue of qualification to the review of legality for resolution.

Q2: What lease and operating documents should be prepared when claiming compensation for production and business suspension losses?

The evidence is collected in three groups. 1. **Ownership and Operation Group**: Factory lease contracts, business licenses, operating permits, and maps or photos of the actual usage area. 2. **Loss Calculation Group**: Tax declaration forms for the past three years before production was halted, audit reports, records of utility payments and wage disbursements, outstanding orders, and descriptions of breach of contract risks. 3. **Procedural Group**: Notifications of production halts, handover documents for vacated premises, lists of relocated equipment, and expense receipts. It is recommended to calculate the loss using either the **post-tax monthly average profit multiplied by the reasonable number of months of production halt** or the **difference between actual and anticipated rental income**, and to submit both methods for review and selection. It is most secure to archive the evidence before production is halted. Materials collected afterward may face questions about their authenticity. When signing any notification of production halt, it is essential to simultaneously retain a copy of the document.

Q3: Are the fees for each stage of applying for government information disclosure and administrative reconsideration expensive?

It's almost cost-free. There's no charge for applying for government information disclosure itself, and administrative authorities are not allowed to collect extralegal fees; administrative reconsideration is free of charge; and if an administrative litigation is initiated against the reconsideration decision, the acceptance fee is 50 yuan per case in accordance with the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees" (implemented on April 1, 2007). The real investment is in attorney fees and time costs. According to the "Measures for the Administration of Lawyer Service Fees" (implemented on April 1, 2007), the attorney fees shall be agreed upon by both parties in the power of attorney contract. The previous case shows that two rounds of reconsideration can promote the performance of duties, indicating that low-cost procedures can also lead to substantive progress. Enterprises with limited budgets can first complete the information application and the first round of reconsideration by themselves, and then concentrate the expenses on the crucial litigation stage, achieving a higher cost-performance ratio.

Q4: How long does it take from applying for a review to ordering the authorities to fulfill their duties when the land expropriation information is not disclosed?

The statutory time limit for review is generally 60 days, and it can be extended by 30 days if the case is complex. In the previous case, after the lawyer's request for information disclosure was rejected on September 23, 2025, he applied for administrative review twice. On April 14, 2026, the review authority determined that the respondent had failed to perform its disclosure duties in accordance with the law and ordered it to provide information such as the land expropriation announcement. The entire process took about seven months, and the interval between the two rounds of review prolonged the cycle. To make the process more efficient, the first application should list the specific information names, forms, and purposes. The responses received should be checked against the application list item by item to identify any omissions. If the responses are untrue or incomplete, the next round of proceedings should be initiated immediately, leaving no room for the other party to delay by claiming that the information does not exist.

Q5: When the expropriator refuses to disclose the compensation information, which relief channels should the affected party first use to seek remedies?

The combination of administrative reconsideration followed by administrative litigation is the most cost-effective approach. After receiving responses such as "the information does not exist" or "the house has not been expropriated", first review whether the entity signing the response has the authority to make such a decision and whether the application list has been addressed item by item. If the response contains evasive answers, apply for reconsideration to the reconsideration authority within the statutory time limit. The aforementioned case demonstrates that the reconsideration authority will order the provision of information such as the land expropriation announcement on the grounds of failing to perform duties in accordance with the law, applying provisions such as Article 26 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). If the reconsideration fails to achieve the desired result, then initiate administrative litigation against the response or the reconsideration decision, paying attention to the six-month statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. Only after obtaining the public information will there be a factual basis for claiming compensation eligibility and compensation amounts.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. 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 currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Land expropriation and demolition legal services·Attorney He Ningning·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.