[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, if a farm does not go through the necessary procedures, it may not necessarily be considered an illegal building, nor will it necessarily fail to receive compensation. The key factors are the nature of the land, the use of the building, and whether the demolition procedures are legal. If the farming facilities are built on agricultural land for facilities, according to the regulations on the management of agricultural land for facilities issued by the competent departments of natural resources and agriculture (Guo Tu Zi Fa [2014] No. 127), they should be managed as agricultural land, and there is no need to obtain a construction project planning permit. It is unfounded to deal with them as illegal buildings on the grounds of "no planning permit". Even if they are indeed illegal buildings, according to Article 44 of the Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2012), forced demolition must also go through statutory procedures such as notification and announcement. For the expropriation of collective land, according to Article 48 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2020), fair and reasonable compensation should be provided for the attachments on the land. It is recommended to first clarify the nature of the land use and procedural defects, and then claim compensation for expropriation, compensation for illegal demolition, or to go through the necessary procedures. For more details, please refer to the following link:Land expropriation and demolition services, and administrative litigation services.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Many disputes over the demolition of farms occur during urban periphery renovations, urban-rural integration projects, and land acquisition processes. Typical scenarios include: the farm was built many years ago, and at that time, only the village collective's approval was needed to use the land, without any written procedures; the aboveground buildings are temporary sheds that have long been outside the scope of planning and management; the demolition party quickly proceeds with the demolition by claiming that "unlicensed buildings are illegal and there is no compensation for illegal buildings"; and during compensation negotiations, the demolition party pressures the farmers by claiming that it's difficult to prove the losses from production and business interruptions. For farmers, the pens, equipment, livestock and poultry in the stockyard, and their business expectations are all real investments. Once they are simply identified as illegal buildings, years of operation may result in total losses. The key to winning or losing such disputes often lies in the identification of the nature of the land use and the legality of the administrative procedures. For cases involving the disposal of aboveground buildings, reference can also be made to relevant provisions.Real estate sales and construction project servicesThe adjacent experience of it.

II. Key points of contention

The focus of the dispute lies in three aspects. Firstly, whether the determination of illegal construction is valid: whether the breeding facilities are subject to the penalty rules of Article 64 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Urban and Rural Planning depends on the nature of the land and the purpose of the building. Production facilities on agricultural land and construction land in urban planning areas should be treated differently. Historical unlicensed buildings should also consider the reasons for their formation and the previous management attitude of the administrative authorities. Secondly, the choice of compensation and indemnification paths: for legal facilities, claim compensation for the replacement of pens, the relocation of equipment, and the losses of production and business suspension according to the standards of expropriation compensation; for illegally demolished facilities, claim compensation for direct losses according to the Law of the People's Republic of China on State Compensation. The two paths are based on different grounds and cannot be mixed. Thirdly, the legality of the procedure: whether there was an investigation, notification, and hearing of statements and defenses before making the determination of illegal construction, and whether there was a reminder and announcement before the demolition. Administrative acts with procedural deficiencies can be revoked or confirmed as illegal according to law.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

Case 1 (No certificate does not mean no rights): Li Hua was a member of a collective economic organization in a village in Jinan City. In 2003, he inherited a 219.8-square-meter residential land and the houses on it from his father. In 2016, when he returned to his hometown, he found that the residential land had been occupied by a fellow villager and the original house had been demolished and rebuilt. In 2024, after the village was included in the urban village transformation program, the street office decided not to provide resettlement for Li Hua on the grounds that he "had neither residential land nor residential houses". After being represented by Henglue Law Firm, Li Hua pointed out that according to the provisions of Document No. 178 [2011] issued by the Ministry of Land and Resources, the right to use the residential land could be legally obtained through inheriting the houses occupying the land. Since the residential land in this case had not undergone the statutory recovery procedures, the right to use it had not been lost. The loss of the house was caused by others' infringement and could not be attributed to Li Hua, let alone be used as a reason to refuse resettlement. The court adopted the above-mentioned opinion, ruled to revoke the "Reply Letter" issued by the street office, and ordered it to provide compensation and resettlement for Li Hua within 60 days after the judgment took effect. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Zhang WeiThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202311579912, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

Case 2 (verifying the legality of expropriation through information disclosure): Liu **, a villager in City H, had his house included in the scope of expropriation for high-speed rail construction but received no compensation. When he applied for disclosure of seven pieces of information, including the approval for land expropriation and the compensation and resettlement plan, the municipal government refused on the grounds that "the house had not been expropriated and the information did not exist". Henglue Law Firm filed for administrative reconsideration twice, pointing out that the response did not comply with statutory forms and essential elements, and that the proof of compensation funds did not match the content of the application. On April 14, 2026, the reconsideration authority determined that the respondent had failed to perform its statutory duties of government information disclosure in accordance with the law and ordered it to provide information such as the land expropriation announcement. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.He NingningAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202511925103, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting as an agent.

The two cases jointly demonstrate that parties with missing procedures can still assert their rights through legal channels and review the legality of the expropriation, identification, and demolition actions one by one; whether they hold licenses is not the only criterion for determining compensation eligibility. The key lies in whether the source of the rights is legitimate and whether the administrative procedures are conducted in accordance with the law.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Main legal basis: Article 48 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2020) (The land expropriation shall be subject to fair and reasonable compensation, and the land compensation fees, resettlement assistance fees, and compensation for attached structures and seedlings shall be paid in full and on time); Article 44 of the Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2012) (The forced demolition must be subject to public announcement and protection of the time limit for remedies through administrative reconsideration and litigation); Article 64 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019) (Ordering the rectification of illegal construction, imposing fines, and requiring demolition within a specified time limit); Article 4 of the State Compensation Law of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2013) (Liability for compensation for property damage caused by the illegal exercise of power); The application period stipulated in the Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2024) is generally 60 days; Article 46 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China (effective July 1, 2017) stipulates that the time limit for filing a lawsuit is six months from the date of becoming aware of the administrative act. Practical suggestions: First, verify the land nature and planning attributes immediately and apply for the formalities of agricultural land for facilities if meeting the conditions for re-application; For illegal construction, make statements and defenses, file for administrative reconsideration or litigation within the time limit; Record the entire process of forced demolition with video, inventory the property and evaluate the losses; Prepare construction investment certificates, inventory records, and operating records during the compensation negotiation.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The most troublesome thing for farms seeking justice is the "procrastination": there are deadlines for reconsideration and litigation for identifying illegal construction, and once the forced demolition is completed, it will greatly increase the difficulty of providing evidence. It is recommended to start legal assessment immediately after receiving the notice of demolition within a specified time limit or the compensation plan, and never use delay to resist the process, nor should you rush to self-demolish before the deadline and then generate disputes again. The progress of rectification projects in and around Beijing is relatively fast, with dense procedural nodes. Timely consulting professional lawyers and acting according to the procedural nodes are the keys to safeguarding compensation and compensation requests. If the acquisition side uses the identification of illegal construction to reduce compensation, you can ask them to show the authority of identification and legal procedures. Identification without legal basis itself constitutes a breakthrough point for negotiation and litigation.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If a farm without proper permits is demolished, can the owners actually receive compensation?

There is room for negotiation, which depends on three judgments: first, whether the land use is classified as facility agricultural land or historically established aquaculture land. If it is the case, the determination of the structure as unauthorized construction based on the "lack of planning permission" is usually unfounded; second, whether the determination and demolition procedures are legal. If the procedures are illegal, the party can confirm the illegality and request compensation; third, whether the structure is within the scope of expropriation. Those subject to expropriation should receive fair compensation for the attached structures in accordance with Article 48 of the Land Management Law. Even if the structure is determined as unauthorized construction, the party can still legally claim compensation for the property losses such as the recyclable materials and equipment of the enclosures, as well as the losses caused by the illegal demolition procedures.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare to protect my rights at the farm?

The core evidence includes: land source materials (contracts, lease agreements, written documents or witness statements of the village collective's consent to the use of the land); construction input vouchers (construction contracts, bills for materials, invoices for equipment purchases); operating evidence (breeding records, quarantine records, sales records, and utility bills); images of the damaged site and a list of the property; and all documents served by the expropriation authority (notices of demolition within a specified time limit, compensation plans, and written responses). If the applicant has applied for a permit but been denied, or if the administrative authority has long allowed the operation to continue unchecked, the relevant transaction records should also be preserved. The more complete the evidence is, the greater the scope for defending against the determination of illegal construction and the amount of losses.

Q3: How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to handle the demolition dispute of a livestock farm?

Such cases are usually charged on a stage-by-stage basis (objections to the determination of illegal construction, appeal litigation, and compensation or restitution negotiations), with the fees related to the subject matter and the complexity of the procedures. The specific fees shall be subject to the terms of the engagement contract. The litigation fees for administrative cases are relatively low, and there is a rule that the losing party bears the costs, which can significantly reduce the cost of safeguarding rights. It is recommended to first engage a lawyer to conduct a procedural assessment: judge the flaws in the determination and demolition procedures, estimate the amount that can be claimed, and then decide which procedures to initiate to avoid cost spiraling out of control. For multiple households affected by the same project, it may be advisable to evaluate jointly hiring a lawyer to share the costs.

Q4: How long does it usually take from raising an objection to receiving compensation or damages?

According to the Administrative Reconsideration Law (effective January 1, 2024), the reconsideration organ generally makes a decision within 60 days after accepting the case; the first-instance ordinary procedure of administrative litigation is concluded within six months (the six-month period stipulated in Article 46 of the Administrative Litigation Law is the time limit for filing a lawsuit rather than the trial period); if the judgment orders the performance of compensation and resettlement duties, there is also a performance period specified in the judgment. If the other party appeals or the case involves appraisal and identification, the period will be extended accordingly. Overall, the procedural remedies can take several months at the fastest, and more than a year for complex cases. Taking Case 1 as an example, the court ordered the street office to provide compensation and resettlement within 60 days, and the progress of the procedure was fast. The key lies in seizing the time limit for filing a lawsuit and making precise claims.

Q5: What should I do first after receiving a notice of a time-limited demolition order?

Five suggestions: First, check the basis for the determination and the authority that issued the notice to determine whether they have the power to impose planning penalties and whether the basis for the determination is valid. Second, submit a statement of defense within the time limit, claiming the nature of the facility as agricultural land or applying for re-filing procedures. Do not give up your procedural rights directly. Third, consult a lawyer to assess the necessity and time limit of review or litigation. The 60-day review period and the six-month litigation period both start from the date you learn of the administrative act. Fourth, simultaneously inventory and photograph all your property and business investments. Fifth, maintain written communication with the acquisition party to promote parallel compensation negotiations. Under no circumstances should you hastily self-demolish before the time limit expires.

The above content is based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Henglue Law Firm for specific situations.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the necessary evidence to avoid missing the statutory time limits. →Land expropriation and demolition legal services·Attorney He Ningning·Beijing Henglue 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. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.