Judgment in this case
Overview of the case
In August 2017, Wang rented a factory building located in XX Village, Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture, and set up an energy-saving stove factory in XX County, Guizhou Province (hereinafter referred to as A stove factory), which is the plaintiff in this case. A stove factory has been carrying out normal production and business activities since its establishment, and has made a certain contribution to local employment and economic development. (The names of the parties are pseudonyms).
Since 2021, the defendant XX County People** has implemented the construction of the XX Expressway project, informing the plaintiff that its enterprise occupies an area within the main line of project construction and expropriation, and that the plaintiff enterprise needs to be relocated as a whole. Due to factors such as the opaque expropriation policy, the unusually low compensation standard, the lack of compensation coverage items, and the non-standard assessment procedures, the plaintiff, the defendant and the expropriation implementation department have not reached an agreement on signing a resettlement or relocation compensation agreement.
On March 18, 2023, the defendant served a "Decision on Enforcement in accordance with Law" to the plaintiff, and the defendant decided to forcibly remove the plaintiff's production equipment and all ancillary items. On March 27, 2023, the defendant organized personnel to forcibly demolish the plaintiff's factory and forcibly relocate the plaintiff's equipment and property, resulting in the damage to the plaintiff's equipment and property, and it has been unable to operate normally so far, causing huge losses.
So, what are the specific compensation payments when the leased plant is demolished?As a lessee, is Wang entitled to compensation for the defendant's expropriation?How do I choose an assertion path?
In order to protect his legitimate rights and interests, Wang decided to entrust lawyer Wen Pinliang of Beijing Henglu Law Firm to defend his rights after many understandings. After receiving the entrustment, Henglu's lawyer carried out the first work as soon as possible, and went to the scene to conduct on-site inspections to understand the facts of the case and confirm the nature of the landSort out the legal relationship of the case, determine the lawful rights and interests that the parties can strive for, and formulate litigation strategies.
q1
Lawyer Henglu believes that
1.The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for expropriation.
Land requisition and demolition not only involves the interests of the house owner (lessor) but also the legitimate interests of the house use right holder (lessee), that is, the plaintiff, A stove factory, as the lessee, has carried out major construction, renovation and decoration of the house (factory) and land involved in the case, and has installed, placed and stored many production and operation equipment and products and other items in the house, including some equipment that is not suitable for relocation, and the plaintiff has significant additional interests with the expropriated land and house, and is entitled to compensation for expropriation.
2.The defendant was guilty of substantive and procedural violations.
As the main body responsible for the expropriation work, the defendant directly demolished the plaintiff's factory and house, forcibly relocated the plaintiff's equipment and articles without conducting a formal legal assessment, did not sign a resettlement or relocation compensation agreement with the plaintiff, did not issue an expropriation compensation decision to the plaintiff, and did not apply to the court for compulsory enforcement, which is a clear substantive and procedural violation.
3.Litigation Claims.
To sum up, in order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests and supervise the administration in accordance with the law, the plaintiff hereby files a lawsuit with your court in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Law and other laws and regulations, requesting a judgment to confirm that the defendant's administrative compulsory act of forcibly demolishing the plaintiff's house and forcibly relocating the plaintiff's equipment and property on March 27, 2023 is illegal;The defendant bears the costs of accepting the case.
q2
The defendant argued:
The defendant argued that the plaintiff's arguments could not be sustained and requested the court to dismiss it.
1.The factory rented by the plaintiff was within the scope of expropriation, and the defendant had signed a resettlement compensation agreement with the land use right holder, the owner of the steel frame shed of the factory and the owner of the factory building and completed the performance. The defendant negotiated with the plaintiff several times, and the plaintiff refused to remove its equipment and appurtenances, and proposed a high amount of compensation, and the defendant moved the plaintiff's stranded equipment and other equipment and leased other factories for storage, which was not an act of compulsory demolition of the house or facilities.
2.After verification with the power supply department, from January 2018 to November 2022, the plaintiff's monthly electricity consumption was less than 500 yuan, or even zero electricity, which is enough to prove that the plaintiff did not carry out normal production and business activities.
Verdict
In the end, the court ruled in favor of our claim. In accordance with the provisions of Article 69 and Article 74, Paragraph 2 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of ChinaThe verdict is as follows:It was confirmed that the defendant's administrative coercive act of forcibly relocating the plaintiff's equipment and property was unlawful;The case acceptance fee is to be borne by the people of the defendant XX County.
1.The defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for resettlement in accordance with law.
The court held that although the defendant and the defendant had reached a resettlement compensation agreement with the landowner, the land user and the factory building claimed by the plaintiff for the factory leased by the plaintiff, the relocation of the plaintiff's production equipment and appurtenances would inevitably incur corresponding expenses, and the defendant should pay resettlement compensation in accordance with the law.
2.The defendant's forced relocation of the plaintiff's production equipment and other administrative acts were illegal.
In the absence of a resettlement compensation agreement with the plaintiff and no decision on resettlement compensation was made against the plaintiff, the defendant forcibly relocated the plaintiff's production equipment and appurtenances, which violated the principle of compensation first and then relocation, and the administrative act of forced relocation had no factual and legal basis. The defendant did not apply to the people's court for compulsory enforcement, and organized the forced relocation on its own, exceeding its statutory authority, and the plaintiff's request to confirm that the defendant's administrative act of forcibly relocating its equipment and property was unlawful, and this court supported it.
However, since the demolished factory building did not belong to the plaintiff, the defendant had already signed a resettlement compensation agreement with the factory building advocate and paid the compensation, and the plaintiff's claim to confirm that the defendant's forced demolition of the plaintiff's house was illegal was not supported by this court.
Constant Statement
This case confirmed that the defendant's administrative act was illegal and was the only way to help the client to claim his rights and interests in the future. In the process of expropriation and relocation of state-owned or collective land and housing, the compensation for the expropriation of commercial housing is often the most complicated, which involves the interests of the owner, tenant, actual operator and other parties. For tenants who are encountering similar difficulties, it is recommended to consult a professional lawyer in a timely manner, and must actively and actively fight for their legitimate rights and interests.