When it comes to the handling of the Tuping "Dashan" forest right certificate, the people feel both indignant and helpless, for the people, making a living is the most important thing, rather than spending time to fight a lawsuit to get back to their own forest land, it is better to go out to work to earn money. I don't have that much time and not so much energy to fight a lawsuit.
Forest tenure certificate (taken in Tuping on December 8, 2023) At the same time, for today's farmers, the economic value generated by forest land like "Dashan" may not be of much value other than subsidies and other trivial expenses under the previous policy of returning farmland to forests. Because he doesn't have much forest land, the economic income he gets is almost negligible.
However, if you concentrate a large area of forest land with a single person, the income is actually very considerable. As a result, some institutions and individuals contract large tracts of forest land, and even take other means that ordinary people do not know about, and the end result is actually one, in order to earn benefits.
For the "big mountain" mountain forest, an area of nearly 1,300 acres of forest land across three villages, there are more than 700 acres handled by You, who was the deputy director of the Forestry Reform Office at the time.
Dashan" (taken on December 8, 2023 in Tuping) According to the "Afforestation Contract" copied to the author by the forestry authority, according to Article 5 of the contract, "benefit distribution: Party A and Party B (Party A refers to the original wasteland use right holder) each hold 50% of the shares". Judging from this article, the shares were actually given to the owner of the right to use the wasteland, not to the village committee.
The contract (provided by the competent authority) Since the shares are given to the original wasteland use right holder, the contract should not be signed with the Rongjiang Village Committee, but with the wasteland use right holder, and the Rongjiang Village Committee does not participate in the distribution of benefitsThe beneficiaries who directly enjoy the shares have not signed the "Afforestation Contract" with You, so the purpose of the contract between the village committee and You is to **?None of the parties signed a contract with You, so what is the validity of the contract?As an audit agency, why did the Rongjiang Village Committee become a signatory?What is the purpose of the signing between Rongjiangcun and You?Neither enjoying the benefits nor withdrawing any benefits, what is the purpose of the village committee's signature and seal?
Judging from the contract provided by the Zheng'an forestry department on the Internet, the words in the middle of the official seal signed by Party A are blurred, as the relevant agency of Tuping Town, as the supervising party, how can they recognize the official seal as "Rongjiang Village Villager Committee of Niudu Township, Zheng'an County"?
People with a little common sense know that since the implementation of the withdrawal of districts and townships in Guizhou in 92, townships and towns, as grass-roots management institutions, are at the same level, if "Niudu Township" is a first-level institution that exists, what qualifications does Tuping Town have to supervise, because everyone is at the same level, and what is even more ridiculous is that Niudu Township has "disappeared" from the Zheng'an institution since July 1992.
The judgment (provided by the insider) that the "Afforestation Contract" was signed on December 31, 1999, nearly seven and a half years after the "disappearance" of "Niudu Township".
The contract (provided by the competent authority) As the supervising party of the contract, how many agencies in the jurisdiction of its own pipeline do not know?To use an inappropriate analogy, as a parent, you don't know how many people in your family are, will you believe it?Unless there is one case, which is delirium. As the competent authority of a town, it is not clear what the institutions under its jurisdiction look like, so what does that mean?Either it is inaction and disorderly action, or there is some kind of unseemly "trick".
Tuping Zhenzhi (provided by the Archives) From the issue of the "afforestation contract", the subject of the contract itself is debatable, of course, this is still a small matter for many people, after all, the loss of benefits has nothing to do with them, however, for the common people, the psychological feelings are different.
If the official seal is vague and the auditor does not question it, and thinks that there is no problem, then according to the relevant authority, if the name is "Rongjiang Village Villager Committee, Niudu Township, Zheng'an County", how does the Rongjiang Village Villager Committee of Tuping Town, as a contract seal, stamp?Could it be that the village did not hand in the original seal in interception?Or is the seal just a forgery?
After all, the leadership of the village committee in charge of the official seal may be "confused", but how do the relevant institutions of Tuping Town, as the supervising party, supervise and how do they cover their official seals?It is very ridiculous that the relevant agencies in Tuping Town review and check the problem.
As the forestry authorities and audit agencies for the review and handling of forest rights certificates, how to review and issue, the duplication of forest rights itself is a problem of auditing, however, there are too many mountains and forests in the county, and it is understandable that the audit is now "flawed", however, for the people, maybe a small "flaw" may bring a lot of disputes and troubles.
What is even more terrible on the Internet is that as the relevant agency for the final review of forest rights and the handling of forest rights certificates, if the audit is not carried out strictly, the problems brought by it are terrible. As for the "Afforestation Contract" signed by You, the official seal is "Rongjiang Village Villager Committee of Niudu Township, Zheng'an County", and from the common sense of the establishment of the institution, we know that the official seal does not meet the requirements of the current institutional setting, so the contract signed by the official seal is obviously problematic.
As a "afforestation contract" signed with the village committee, there are some problems with the initial official seal and terms of the network, especially the ambiguity of the official seal, no one questioned it, no one questioned the audit of the village committee, no one questioned the relevant departments of Tuping Town as the supervising party, and as the final review and certification agency, there was no problem found, and the road was smooth.
The network level institutions did not find problems, itself should not be, but it is understandable, after all, it is inevitable that there will be negligence, but the audit of institutions at all levels has not found problems, what does the problem mean?Either all the auditors do not have the basic knowledge of the audit work, or the auditors will treat the handling of the forest right certificate as a "child's play", and it is not their own business. Either the auditors "pretend to be deaf and dumb", snakes and rats are in a nest, and carry out some illegal transactions.