>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No. 22: Wei Yonggao and Chen Shouzhi v. People's Government of Laian County (Land use right retraction dispute)
指导案例22号:魏永高、陈守志诉来安县人民政府收回土地使用权批复案
【法宝引证码】

Guiding Case No. 22: Wei Yonggao and Chen Shouzhi v. People's Government of Laian County(Land use right retraction dispute)

 

指导案例22号:魏永高、陈守志诉来安县人民政府收回土地使用权批复案

(Issued on November 8, 2013, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2013年11月8日发布)

Guiding Case No. 22 指导案例22号
Keywords: 关键词
Administrative lawsuit; scope of cases accepted; official reply 行政诉讼 受案范围 批复
Judgment's Key Points 裁判要点
The issuance of official replies by a local people's government to requests for instructions submitted by its administrative agencies is generally an internal administrative action, and no lawsuits may be filed for such actions. However, where an administrative agency directly implements an official reply, actually affecting the rights and obligations of the opposite party in its administration, and the opposite party files a lawsuit against the official reply, the people's court should accept the lawsuit according to the law. 地方人民政府对其所属行政管理部门的请示作出的批复,一般属于内部行政行为,不可对此提起诉讼。但行政管理部门直接将该批复付诸实施并对行政相对人的权利义务产生了实际影响,行政相对人对该批复不服提起诉讼的,人民法院应当依法受理。
Relevant Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 11 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第十一条
Basic Facts 基本案情
On August 31, 2010, the Department of Land, Resources and Housing of Laian County, Anhui province submitted a Request for Instructions on the Retraction of State-Owned Land Use Rights to the People's Government of Laian County, requesting the retraction of the land use rights in some parcels located at East Yongyang Road and Middle Tashan Road of Laian County. On September 6, The People's Government of Laian County issued an Official Reply on Agreeing to Retract the State-Owned Land Use Rights in Some Parcels Located at East Yongyang Road and Middle Tashan Road. After receipt of the official reply, the Department of Land, Resources and Housing of Laian County failed to issue and serve upon the original land use right holders a written decision on the retraction of land use rights as legally required; instead, it directly arranged for the Land Reserve Center of Laian County to implement the official reply. The houses of Wei Yonggao and Chen Shouzhi were within the reach of land in which the land use rights were to be retracted. Against the official reply of the People's Government of Laian County on the retraction of state-owned land use rights, they requested administrative reconsideration. On September 20, 2011, the People's Government of Chuzhou City issued a written Administrative Reconsideration Decision to uphold the official reply of the People's Government of Laian County. Against the decision, Wei Yonggao and Chen Shouzhi filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the people's court to revoke the aforesaid official reply of the People's Government of Laian County. 2010年8月31日,安徽省来安县国土资源和房产管理局向来安县人民政府报送《关于收回国有土地使用权的请示》,请求收回该县永阳东路与塔山中路部分地块土地使用权。9月6日,来安县人民政府作出《关于同意收回永阳东路与塔山中路部分地块国有土地使用权的批复》。来安县国土资源和房产管理局收到该批复后,没有依法制作并向原土地使用权人送达收回土地使用权决定,而直接交由来安县土地储备中心付诸实施。魏永高、陈守志的房屋位于被收回使用权的土地范围内,其对来安县人民政府收回国有土地使用权批复不服,提起行政复议。2011年9月20日,滁州市人民政府作出《行政复议决定书》,维持来安县人民政府的批复。魏永高、陈守志仍不服,提起行政诉讼,请求人民法院撤销来安县人民政府上述批复。
Judgment 裁判结果
On December 23, 2011, the Intermediate People's Court of Chuzhou City issued an administrative ruling (No. 6 [2011], First, Administrative Division, Intermediate People's Court, Chuzhou) to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Wei Yonggao and Chen Shouzhi. Wei Yonggao and Chen Shouzhi appealed. On September 10, 2012, the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province issued the following administrative ruling (No. 14 [2012], Final, Administrative Division, Higher People's Court, Anhui Province): (1) The administrative ruling (No. 6 [2011], First, Administrative Division, Intermediated People's Court, Chuzhou) of the Intermediate People's Court of Chuzhou City should be revoked. (2) The Intermediate People's Court of Chuzhou City should continue to try this case. 滁州市中级人民法院于2011年12月23日作出(2011)滁行初字第6号行政裁定:驳回魏永高、陈守志的起诉。魏永高、陈守志提出上诉,安徽省高级人民法院于2012年9月10日作出(2012)皖行终字第14号行政裁定:一、撤销滁州市中级人民法院(2011)滁行初字第6号行政裁定;二、指令滁州市中级人民法院继续审理本案。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that: In accordance with the procedures for reserving state-owned land by retraction as prescribed in the Measures for the Administration of Land Reserves and the Measures of Anhui Province for the State-Owned Land Reserves, after the People's Government of Laian County issued an official reply on agreeing to retract state-owned land use rights, the land and resources department of Laian County should have served a notice of retraction of state-owned land use rights with external legal effect upon the original land-use right holders. The issuance of an official reply by the People's Government of Laian County was an internal administrative action, and if the official reply was not served upon the opposite party, the rights and obligations of the opposite party would not be actually affected. Generally, it did not fall within the scope of administrative lawsuits. However, in this case, after the People's Government of Laian County issued an official reply, the land and resources department of Laian County failed to make and serve a legal document with external legal effect. Instead, it directly arranged for the Land Reserve Center of Laian County to implement dismantlement compensation and relocation according to the official reply, which had an actual effect on the rights and obligations of the original land use right holders. The original land use right holders had access to the official reply by filing a request for open government information, and requested administrative reconsideration. In the reconsideration decision, the reconsideration agency informed the original land use right holders of their right to sue. The official reply had been actually implemented, becoming a specific administrative action with external legal effect. Therefore, the people's court should, according to the law, accept an administrative lawsuit filed against the official reply.

 法院生效裁判认为:根据《土地储备管理办法》和《安徽省国有土地储备办法》以收回方式储备国有土地的程序规定,来安县国土资源行政主管部门在来安县人民政府作出批准收回国有土地使用权方案批复后,应当向原土地使用权人送达对外发生法律效力的收回国有土地使用权通知。来安县人民政府的批复属于内部行政行为,不向相对人送达,对相对人的权利义务尚未产生实际影响,一般不属于行政诉讼的受案范围。但本案中,来安县人民政府作出批复后,来安县国土资源行政主管部门没有制作并送达对外发生效力的法律文书,即直接交来安县土地储备中心根据该批复实施拆迁补偿安置行为,对原土地使用权人的权利义务产生了实际影响;原土地使用权人也通过申请政府信息公开知道了该批复的内容,并对批复提起了行政复议,复议机关作出复议决定时也告知了诉权,该批复已实际执行并外化为对外发生法律效力的具体行政行为。因此,对该批复不服提起行政诉讼的,人民法院应当依法受理。
 

     
     
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