Guangdong Huizhou case: 60 mu farm demolition, the county government refused to compensation?The judgment shall be executed within a time limit

2022-05-04 0 By

During the period of the requisition, households and demolition often have all kinds of contradictions between departments, and almost all these contradictions because of relocation compensation as a result of, in the practice of demolition department often for their own interests, not willing to give for relocated legal and reasonable compensation, often with environmental protection and renovation neo-treasure hill reason to withhold, even refused to pay compensation,What should households do in the face of this situation?Today, the author will take you to understand through a guangdong Huizhou case.In September 2005, Chen mou in response to guangdong Huizhou Boluo County to vigorously develop livestock and poultry breeding industry call, and XX village committee signed a land contract, contracted 60 acres of land for livestock and poultry breeding, contract period for 30 years, has been operating in accordance with the law for many years.In April 2013, Boluo county people’s government made a “notice about further expanding the livestock and poultry forbidden area limits”, Chen’s farm is also in the notice range.In July 2018, the town government made a notice to Chen on the removal and closure of the farm, citing Chen’s violation of planning and environmental pollution, requiring Chen to move within a specified period of time. If the farm is not closed after the deadline, it will be forcibly removed, but did not talk about compensation.In August 2018, XXL (county) to the demolition departments in accordance with the application and mail the application for compensation, the request compensation on their farms, XXL 10 days after received the demolition department “no administrative compensation decision”, Chen refuses, then appoint lawyers filed the lawsuit to the case, request the court to cancel the “no administrative compensation decision”,Order the demolition and relocation departments to perform the duty of compensation.In the trial, the demolition department argued: “Chen’s farm has pollution problems, and opened in the forbidden area, does not have the legitimacy, does not have the interests of legal protection, therefore should not be compensated for demolition, request the court to reject all the claims of Chen”.Second, the case analysis of “administrative permit law” stipulated in article 8, the administrative relative person in accordance with the law of administrative licensing, protected by law in accordance with the law, administrative permission cannot be changed without authorization in effect, but if due to objective conditions changed much, based on the need of public interests, the administrative organ may not withdraw the license, but the administrative relative person suffers losses,The administrative organ shall make compensation according to law.According to article 25 of the Regulations on the Prevention and Control of Pollution from Large-scale livestock and Poultry farming, if it is necessary to close the breeding site due to environmental pollution control and the designation of prohibited breeding areas, the local people’s government at or above the county level shall compensate the farmers for their losses.According to the law, both for the administrative licensing back, or to ban area of losses to farms, shall be in accordance with the law of compensation for the relocated people, in this case, although the demolition department is based on the needs of the public interest, for XXL for farms, but also shall make compensation in accordance with the law to the XXL,Chen has provided relevant evidence for investment and construction in the early years, and it has been operating in accordance with the law for more than ten years, and it enjoys trust interests according to law. However, although the demolition and relocation department claims that there is pollution and violation of planning in its breeding farm, it has not provided exact evidence to prove it. The demolition and relocation department should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence.The “decision not to make administrative compensation” should be revoked according to law, and should be a deadline for compensation to Chen.1. Revoke the Written Decision not to Grant Administrative Compensation made by the demolition and relocation departments;2. Order the demolition and relocation department to deal with Chen’s application for compensation again within 60 days from the effective date of this judgment;3. The legal costs of the case shall be borne by the demolition and relocation department.In this case, Chen had contracted and built a farm in accordance with the law as early as 2005, but at that time there was no regulation prohibiting breeding, and at that time it was in response to the call of local policies, so Chen invested in the factory based on the trust of the administrative authorities, and its trust interests were worth protecting according to law.In this case, on the other hand, the ban area designated time is in 2013, after Chen investment has been in the past eight years, according to the law is not retroactive principle, demolition department doesn’t follow the XXL qualitative for the neo-treasure hill farms, more do not refuse to compensate for XXL, so its “no administrative compensation decision made illegal, shall be revoked in accordance with the law,And should be timely on the demolition of Chen farm to fulfill the responsibility of compensation.Land expropriation, demolition and rights protection, is a complex system of engineering, not only to pay attention to the duration of various rights protection procedures, but also to the legal procedures for careful selection.Therefore, if you encounter legal problems during land expropriation and demolition, you can leave a private message to safeguard your legitimate rights and interests through legal means.