[Key words] demolition, performance of resettlement compensation responsibilities, evaluation
[introduction to the lawyer of this case] Zhou Yang is a practicing lawyer and consultant of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. Since his practice, he has been serious and rigorous in handling cases, steady and steady in style, and his work achievements have been fully recognized by customers. He has successfully handled many complex and difficult civil and commercial litigation cases independently. In addition to providing litigation agency services for clients, lawyer Zhou Yang has provided legal advisory services for many large companies. He has drafted and amended legal documents such as company contracts for many times, analyzed, answered and handled legal problems that occurred or potential in customer management, proposed appropriate solutions, and reduced the legal risks of clients. Lawyer Zhou Yang has been engaged in legal affairs of foreign investment banks for many years, and has in-depth research and rich practical experience in enterprise restructuring, company restructuring, capital operation, etc.
[main points of adjudication] first, the collective land expropriated has been included in the scope of urban planning during the resettlement and compensation. Should the land value be included in the evaluation value of the above ground certified houses; Second, how to determine the amount of compensation for houses with certificates; Third, the interest standard of compensation expenses.
[basic case] in June 2011, a people's Government of the appellee decided to carry out expansion greening and transformation of villages in the city along ShenZhang Industrial Avenue. The appellant Liang Mou is a villager of wangniu village, Zaohua sub district, Yuhong District, Shenyang City, and his area is included in the scope of land acquisition. On July 20, 2013, the appellee forcibly demolished the appellant's living place, demolishing all three houses with certificates, houses without certificates and production and living facilities of the appellant. Later, the appellant and the appellee failed to reach an agreement on resettlement compensation, and the appellant filed a lawsuit with Shenyang intermediate people's court. The judgment of the first instance did not accept the evaluation conclusion of the above ground objects including the land value, and determined the compensation standard as appropriate. The appellant disagreed and appealed to the higher people's Court of Liaoning Province.
[judgment result] the second instance judgment of Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court changed the judgment and cancelled some of the judgments of the first instance, and the amount of compensation for the changed judgment exceeded the amount of the first instance by more than 80%.
[reason for judgment] if the court of second instance considers that the collective land expropriated has been included in the scope of urban planning during the resettlement compensation, the legal aboveground objects shall be resettled and compensated according to the compensation standard for the aboveground objects of state-owned land according to the provisions of the regulations on the administration of urban housing demolition, and the final compensation amount shall be formed by floating a certain proportion on the basis of the assessed amount according to the relevant policies of Shenyang.
[legal basis] the second paragraph of Article 12 of the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of administrative cases involving rural collective land, the reply of the Supreme People's Court on issues related to the compensation for the demolition of land houses after the requisition of rural collective land, and the notice of Shenyang Municipality on further improving the compensation and resettlement of urban housing demolition.
[lawyer's opinion] in the case that the judgment of the first instance did not accept the evaluation report, which is the key evidence for determining the compensation amount, the agent argued with clear legal and policy basis in the second instance, and finally revoked the unreasonable judgment, which achieved a result satisfactory to the parties. It is of typical significance.
[introduction to the lawyer of this case] Zhou Yang is a practicing lawyer and consultant of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. Since his practice, he has been serious and rigorous in handling cases, steady and steady in style, and his work achievements have been fully recognized by customers. He has successfully handled many complex and difficult civil and commercial litigation cases independently. In addition to providing litigation agency services for clients, lawyer Zhou Yang has provided legal advisory services for many large companies. He has drafted and amended legal documents such as company contracts for many times, analyzed, answered and handled legal problems that occurred or potential in customer management, proposed appropriate solutions, and reduced the legal risks of clients. Lawyer Zhou Yang has been engaged in legal affairs of foreign investment banks for many years, and has in-depth research and rich practical experience in enterprise restructuring, company restructuring, capital operation, etc.
[main points of adjudication] first, the collective land expropriated has been included in the scope of urban planning during the resettlement and compensation. Should the land value be included in the evaluation value of the above ground certified houses; Second, how to determine the amount of compensation for houses with certificates; Third, the interest standard of compensation expenses.
[basic case] in June 2011, a people's Government of the appellee decided to carry out expansion greening and transformation of villages in the city along ShenZhang Industrial Avenue. The appellant Liang Mou is a villager of wangniu village, Zaohua sub district, Yuhong District, Shenyang City, and his area is included in the scope of land acquisition. On July 20, 2013, the appellee forcibly demolished the appellant's living place, demolishing all three houses with certificates, houses without certificates and production and living facilities of the appellant. Later, the appellant and the appellee failed to reach an agreement on resettlement compensation, and the appellant filed a lawsuit with Shenyang intermediate people's court. The judgment of the first instance did not accept the evaluation conclusion of the above ground objects including the land value, and determined the compensation standard as appropriate. The appellant disagreed and appealed to the higher people's Court of Liaoning Province.
[judgment result] the second instance judgment of Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court changed the judgment and cancelled some of the judgments of the first instance, and the amount of compensation for the changed judgment exceeded the amount of the first instance by more than 80%.
[reason for judgment] if the court of second instance considers that the collective land expropriated has been included in the scope of urban planning during the resettlement compensation, the legal aboveground objects shall be resettled and compensated according to the compensation standard for the aboveground objects of state-owned land according to the provisions of the regulations on the administration of urban housing demolition, and the final compensation amount shall be formed by floating a certain proportion on the basis of the assessed amount according to the relevant policies of Shenyang.
[legal basis] the second paragraph of Article 12 of the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of administrative cases involving rural collective land, the reply of the Supreme People's Court on issues related to the compensation for the demolition of land houses after the requisition of rural collective land, and the notice of Shenyang Municipality on further improving the compensation and resettlement of urban housing demolition.
[lawyer's opinion] in the case that the judgment of the first instance did not accept the evaluation report, which is the key evidence for determining the compensation amount, the agent argued with clear legal and policy basis in the second instance, and finally revoked the unreasonable judgment, which achieved a result satisfactory to the parties. It is of typical significance.
Legal consultation hotline