>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Shanxi Anye Group Co., Ltd. v. People's Government of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province (Case about decision on the retraction of state-owned land use rights)
山西省安业集团有限公司诉山西省太原市人民政府收回国有土地使用权决定案
【法宝引证码】

Shanxi Anye Group Co., Ltd. v. People's Government of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province (Case about decision on the retraction of state-owned land use rights)
(Case about decision on the retraction of state-owned land use rights)
山西省安业集团有限公司诉山西省太原市人民政府收回国有土地使用权决定案
Shanxi Anye Group Co., Ltd. v. People's Government of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province (Case about decision on the retraction of state-owned land use rights) 山西省安业集团有限公司诉山西省太原市人民政府收回国有土地使用权决定案
[Judgment Abstract] [裁判摘要]
Where there is expropriation, there must be compensation for it. Where there is no compensation, expropriation is not allowed. Expropriation compensation shall follow the principles of timely compensation and fair compensation. Before the problem of compensation is solved according to the statutory procedures, the person subject to expropriation has the right to reject the handover of the housing and land. 有征收必有补偿,无补偿则无征收。征收补偿应当遵循及时补偿原则和公平补偿原则。补偿问题未依法定程序解决前,被征收人有权拒绝交出房屋和土地。
Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院
Administrative Judgment 行政判决书
(No. 80 [2016], Administrative Retrial, SPC) (2016)最高法行再80号
BASIC FACTS 
Retrial Applicant (Plaintiff in the first instance and Appellant in the second instance): Shanxi Anye Group Co., Ltd., domiciled in No. 50, Shuangta West Street, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province. 再审申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人)山西省安业集团有限公司。
Legal Representative: Wei Baolin, Chairman of the Board of Directors of this Company. 法定代表人卫宝麟,该公司董事长。
Authorized Agent: Wang Junjie, lawyer from Shanxi Huike Law Firm. 委托代理人王俊杰,山西慧科律师事务所律师。
Authorized Agent: Pan Xuelin, employee of Shanxi Anye Group Co., Ltd. 委托代理人潘雪林,山西省安业集团有限公司工作人员。
Retrial Respondent (Defendant in the first instance and Appellee in the second instance): People's Government of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province, domiciled in No. 69, Xinjian Road, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province. 再审被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人)山西省太原市人民政府。
Legal Representative: Geng Yanbo, Mayor of this City. 法定代表人耿彦波,该市市长。
Authorized Agent: Meng Xuejun, staff member of the Legislative Affairs Department of the People's Government of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province. 委托代理人孟学俊,山西省太原市人民政府法制办工作人员。
Authorized Agent: Guo Jiadong, staff member of the Land and Resources Bureau of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province. 委托代理人郭家栋,山西省太原市国土资源局工作人员。

Retrial applicant, Shanxi Anye Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Anye Company”), filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court since it refused to accept the administrative judgment (No. 50 [2015], Final, Administrative Division, HPC, Shanxi) as rendered by the Higher People's Government of Shanxi Province for a lawsuit regarding decision on the retraction of state-owned land use rights against the People's Government of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Government of Taiyuan City”). Upon hearing examination, the Supreme People's Court rendered an administrative ruling (No. 2102 [2015], Administrative Supervision, SPC) on May 24, 2016 and decided to bring the case to trial. After the case was brought to trial, the Supreme People's Court formed a collegiate bench in which presiding judge Geng Baojian, acting judge Li Weihua, and acting judge Zhou Mi participated and publicly tried the case. Anye Company authorized Wang Junjie and Pan Xuelin and the Government of Taiyuan City authorized Meng Xuejun and Guo Jiadong to appear in court and participate in the litigation. The trial of this case has been concluded.

 再审申请人山西省安业集团有限公司(以下简称安业公司)诉山西省太原市人民政府(以下简称太原市政府)收回国有土地使用权决定一案,不服山西省高级人民法院(2015)晋行终字第50号行政判决,向本院申请再审。经听证审查后,本院于2016年5月24日作出(2015)行监字第2102号行政裁定,决定提审本案。提审后,本院依法组成由审判员耿宝建、代理审判员李纬华、代理审判员周觅参加的合议庭,对本案公开开庭进行了审理。安业公司委托代理人王俊杰、潘雪林,太原市政府委托代理人孟学俊、郭家栋到庭参加诉讼。现已审理终结。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The courts of first instance and second instance found the following major facts: Anye Company obtained the State-owned Land Use Certificate for the land located in No. 62 Shuangta West Street in April and October 2004 and the Housing Property Certificate on March 1, 2006. In order to implement the reconstruction of Jiefang South Road and Changzhi Road, on April 4, 2014, the Government of Taiyuan City issued an Announcement of the People's Government of Taiyuan City on the Retraction of Land Use Rights of Some State-owned Land on the South of Yingze Street and on the North of Center Street for the Purpose of Implementing the Reconstruction of Jiefang South Road and Changzhi Road (hereinafter referred to as the “Announcement”) and the Announcement was publicized on Taiyuan Daily and the special column of Land Expropriation on the website of the Land and Resources Bureau of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province on April 10, 2014. In the Announcement, all relevant entities and residents were notified that the Government of Taiyuan City decided to retract the land use rights of the state-owned land of 776.85 mu involving 87 entities for the reconstruction of Jiefang South Road and Changzhi Road. The entities and residents involved should, within 15 days after the Announcement was issued, undergo formalities for the revocation of land use rights at the Land and Resources Bureau of Taiyuan City upon strength of the relevant land certificates; if they failed to hand over the land certificates within the prescribed time limit, such land certificates would be revoked. The Announcement stated that the areas of lands involving Anye Company were 7.77 square meters and 741.73 square meters respectively, 741.73 square meters in total. Anye Company refused to accept the Announcement and filed this lawsuit, requesting the legal revocation of the act of the Government of Taiyuan City of retracting the state-owned land use rights. 

一、二审法院查明以下主要事实:安业公司于2004年4月和2005年10月先后办理了双塔西街162号的《国有土地使用证》,并于2006年3月1日办理了《房屋产权证》。太原市政府为实施解放南路长治路改造道路建设,于2014年4月4日发布并政收告〔2014〕018号《太原市人民政府为实施解放南路长治路改造道路建设涉及收回迎泽大街以南,中心街以北部分国有土地使用权的通告》(以下简称《通告》),并公示于2014年4月10日《太原日报》、山西省太原市国土资源局网站收地专栏。该《通告》告知各有关单位和住户,市政府决定收回解放南路长治路道路建设所涉及87个单位776.85亩的国有土地使用权。涉及的单位和住户自通告发布之日起15日内带有关土地手续到太原市国土资源局办理土地使用权注销手续;逾期不交回的,将予以注销。《通告》载明所涉安业公司两幅土地的面积分别为7.77平方米、741.73平方米,共749.5平方米。安业公司对《通告》不服提起本案诉讼,请求依法撤销太原市政府收回其国有土地使用权的行为。

The courts of first instance and second instance held that: On April 4, 2014, the Government of Taiyuan City issued the Announcement, in which it decided to retract the land use rights of the state-owned land of 776.85 mu involving 87 entities for the reconstruction of Jiefang South Road and Changzhi Road, and there were specific south-north boundaries, entities involved, and area of land subject to retraction. The state-owned land within the area as specified in the Announcement was retracted for the purpose of implementing the road reconstruction project for realizing urban planning and the use of such state-owned land was actually for the needs of public interests. In accordance with the legal provisions, with the approval of the competent authority, the people's government may retract the state-owned land use rights. Before the issuance of the Announcement, the relevant entity has undergone formalities for land use planning and obtained approval of the Government of Taiyuan City and thus the retraction procedures complied with the legal provisions. In accordance with the provisions of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Administration Law”), state-owned land that was retracted according to the law may be directly deregistered. Therefore, matters concerning the deregistration of land use rights in the Announcement did not violate the legal provisions. For the retraction of the state-owned land use rights legally obtained by Anye Company, the Government of Taiyuan City should make compensation to Anye Company in accordance with the legal provisions. It was also specified in the Announcement that the relocation compensation matters involved in the retraction of the aforesaid state-owned land use rights should be legally handled according to the relevant provisions. After the publication of the Announcement on April 10, 2014, the Government of Taiyuan City decided to suspend the implementation of this project on May 7, 2014. Therefore, the work of compensation failed to be actually carried out. The claim of Anye Company that the Government of Taiyuan City must implement compensation before issuing the Announcement lacked factual and legal basis. Therefore, the court of first instance rendered a judgment to reject the claim of Anye Company that the administrative decision on land expropriation (No. 018 [2014], Administrative Expropriation, Government of Taiyuan) as made by the Government of Taiyuan City should be revoked. Anye Company refused to accept the administrative decision and appealed. The court of second instance rendered a judgment to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. 一、二审法院认为:太原市政府于2014年4月4日发布《通告》,决定收回解放南路长治路道路建设所涉及87个单位776.85亩的国有土地使用权,有明确的南北界线、涉及单位和收回土地面积。收回通告区域内的国有土地,是为实现城市规划而实施道路建设改造工程,属于因公共利益需要使用土地。根据法律规定,经有权机关批准,人民政府可以收回国有土地使用权。《通告》发布前,相关单位办理了用地规划手续,并报请太原市政府批复同意,其收回程序符合法律规定。根据《中华人民共和国土地管理法》(以下简称《土地管理法》)的规定,依法收回的国有土地,可直接办理注销登记。因此,《通告》中有关土地使用权注销事项的内容并不违反法律规定。太原市政府收回安业公司依法取得的国有土地使用权,应当依照法律规定予以补偿。《通告》中也明确,收回上述国有土地使用权涉及的拆迁补偿事宜按照有关规定依法进行。2014年4月10日《通告》公示后,即于5月7日决定该项目暂缓实施,故未能实际开展补偿工作。安业公司认为太原市政府在作出通告前必须落实补偿的主张没有事实和法律依据。据此,一审法院判决驳回安业公司要求撤销太原市政府并政收告〔2014〕018号行政征收决定的诉讼请求。安业公司不服,提起上诉,二审法院判决驳回上诉,维持原判。
In the retrial application filed by the retrial applicant, Anye Company, with the Supreme People's Court, Anye Company claimed that the final judgment rendered by the Higher People's Court of Shanxi Province should be set aside on the following grounds: First, under the circumstance where the compensation matters were not implemented, the Government of Taiyuan City directly made a decision on the retraction of land use rights, which was a violation of procedures. Second, the subject that retracted the state-owned land use rights should be a competent land administrative department of the people's government. As a people's government at the prefecture level, the Government of Taiyuan City made a decision on directly retracting the state-owned land use rights, which was abuse of administrative powers. Third, the retraction of state-owned land use rights must comply with the overall planning of land use and the overall urban planning. At the meantime, opinions of experts and the public on the handling of planning formalities must be solicited through demonstration meetings, hearings, and other forms. Where the planning was modified, approval should be legally obtained according to the approval procedures. In this case, under the circumstance where the planning formalities for road reconstruction failed to be handled according to the statutory procedures, the Government of Taiyuan City directly decided to retract the state-owned land use rights, which was a procedural violation. Fourth, the Urban Real Estate Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, the Interim Regulation of the People's Republic of China on the Assignment and Transfer of Urban State-owned Land, and other relevant laws and regulations provided that under special circumstances, for the needs of public interests, the state may retract the land use rights in advance according to the legal procedures. The land retraction by the Government of Taiyuan City was obviously inconsistent with any “special circumstance” as prescribed in the laws. It has been over two years after the decision on land expropriation was made, but the road reconstruction project has not been initiated, which was contrary to the basic principles of administration by law and reasonable administration. Fifth, under the principle of due process and in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, before a state administrative organ made a decision involving the vital interests of citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, it should notify the counterparts of facts, grounds, and basis for the decision and listen to the statements and defenses of the parties. After an administrative decision was made, the state administrative organ should serve the decision upon the administrative counterparts in writing. The Government of Taiyuan City neither served the written decision on retracting the state-owned land use rights upon Anye Company nor notified Anye Company of any fact, ground, and basis for the retraction of the state-owned land use rights and listened to Anye Company's statement and defense. Instead, it only published in the form of an announcement in the special column of land expropriation on the website of the Land and Resources Bureau of Taiyuan City that the total area of Anye Company's land to be retracted amounted to 749.5 square meters (with unclear boundaries). In conclusion, the administrative act of the Government of Taiyuan City was obviously inappropriate in procedures, which was illegal administration. The judgments rendered by the courts of first instance and second instance were inappropriate in rejecting Anye Company's claim and such judgments should be set aside according to the law.
......
 再审申请人安业公司在向本院提出的再审申请中请求撤销山西省高级人民法院终审判决。理由有:第一,太原市政府在补偿事宜均未落实的情况下,直接作出收回土地使用权的决定属于程序违法;第二,国有土地使用权收回的主体是人民政府的土地行政主管部门,太原市政府作为地市一级的人民政府直接作出收回国有土地使用权的决定,属于滥用行政权力;第三,收回国有土地使用权必须符合土地利用总体规划和城市总体规划,同时规划手续的办理须经论证会、听证会或者其他方式征求专家和公众的意见,修改规划的应当依法办理审批程序报批。本案中,太原市政府在道路改造的规划手续未经法定程序办理的情况下即直接决定收回国有土地使用权,属于程序违法;第四,《中华人民共和国城市房地产管理法》、《中华人民共和国城镇国有土地使用权出让和转让暂行条例》等法律法规均规定,土地使用权在特殊情况下,根据社会公共利益的需要,国家可以依照法律程序提前收回。太原市政府的收地行为显然与法律规定的“特殊情况”不符,收地决定作出至今已有两年之久,而道路改造项目并未开工建设,显然与我国依法行政、合理行政的基本原则相违悖;第五,根据正当程序原则以及相关法律规定,国家行政机关在作出涉及公民、法人或者其他组织切身利益的决定前,应当告知相对人决定的事实、理由和依据,并听取当事人的陈述和申辩,作出行政决定后,应当将该决定书面送达行政相对人。太原市政府自始至终没有向安业公司送达收回国有土地使用权的书面决定,也没有告知收回国有土地使用权决定的任何事实、理由和依据,更没有听取安业公司的陈述和申辩,取而代之的是仅仅在太原市国土资源局网站收地专栏以通告的形式公示了收回安业公司土地的面积共计749.5平方米(具体四至范围不清)。综上,太原市政府的行政行为明显程序不当,属于违法行政。原审法院判决驳回安业公司的诉讼请求不当,应依法予以撤销。
......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese