2020-12-14

The Supreme Law issued a typical administrative case of cultivated land protection: resolutely curb the illegal occupation of cultivated land in rural areas

By yqqlm yqqlm

China News Service, December 14th. According to the Supreme Court website, in order to further strengthen the awareness of the extreme importance of cultivated land protection by administrative agencies at all levels and the general public, and resolutely curb the illegal occupation of cultivated land in rural areas, the Supreme People’s Court has recently Courts across the country collected and sorted out 8 typical cases involving cultivated land protection concluded in recent years, and they were officially released on the 14th.

This batch of cases ranges from the legally governing the “non-agriculturalization” and “non-grainization” of cultivated land, the main responsibility of land reclamation, the compensation method for compensating farmers’ contracted land without approval procedures, and the public interest litigation of cultivated land protection , Special protection of basic farmland, statute of limitations for administrative penalties for illegal land occupation, legal basis for investigation and punishment of different types of illegal buildings, etc. explained the application of relevant laws and regulations on farmland protection.

At present, my country’s economic development has entered a new normal, new industrialization and urbanization have been intensified, and the reserve resources of cultivated land have been declining. The protection of cultivated land is facing multiple pressures. In recent years, the Party Central Committee and the State Council have continuously made decisions and deployments, and relevant departments in various regions have actively taken measures to strengthen their main responsibilities and strictly observe the red line of cultivated land. The work of cultivated land protection has achieved remarkable results. Since the beginning of this year, General Secretary Xi Jinping has issued important instructions on the protection of cultivated land on many occasions, and the rectification of the problem of illegal occupation of cultivated land in rural areas across the country has also begun. The release of this case demonstrates the people’s court’s “zero tolerance” attitude and stance on the illegal occupation of cultivated land, and reflects the people’s court’s responsibility and mission to protect the national red line of cultivated land in accordance with the law.

Attachment: Typical administrative case of cultivated land protection

  1. Sun v. Xi’an Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources Land Administrative Penalty Case

April 5, 2018, Sun A certain person built a steel greenhouse and its auxiliary facilities on the contracted land of the same villagers without obtaining the approval of the relevant administrative department, occupying 3.96 acres of land in the basic farmland protection area for the planting of seedlings and flowers. On April 8, 2018, Xi’an Land and Resources Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Xi’an Land and Resources Bureau) filed a case for Sun’s alleged illegal land use violations and investigated Sun and the witness Sun Moumou. Sun Moumou and Sun Moumou Both acknowledged the fact that Sun occupied the contracted land of the villagers to construct steel greenhouses. On May 28 of the same year, the Xi’an Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources separately issued and served a notice of land administrative punishment and a notice of hearing to Sun. Sun did not file a statement, defense and hearing application to the defendant within the prescribed time limit. The Xi’an Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources issued the “Land Administrative Penalty Decision” of the Municipal Government (2018) No. 9-102, which determined that on April 5, 2018, Sun occupied 3.96 of the land in Sunjiawan Village, Xiliu Street Office, without approval A steel structure greenhouse is built per mu. After checking the overall land use plan of Xiliu Street Office in Chang’an District (2006-2020), the land in this parcel is basic farmland, and the current situation is cultivated land. As of the date of the investigation, the sunshine greenhouse of 60 meters long and 33 meters wide has been basically completed, and the foundation and steel structure of the building of 23 meters long and 10 meters wide have been completed. This behavior violated the provisions of Articles 43 and 59 of the Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Land Administration Law), and the behavior is a land illegal act. According to Article 76 and Article 83 of the Land Administration Law, Article 42 of the “Regulations for the Implementation of the Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China”, Article 21 of the “Administrative Review Law of the People’s Republic of China”, According to Article 53 of the Administrative Mandatory Law and Article 51 of the Administrative Punishment Law of the People’s Republic of China, the penalties are determined as follows: 1. Within 15 days from the date of receipt of this penalty decision, the illegal occupation shall be dismantled 3.96 Newly built steel sheds and other facilities on a mu of land to restore the original state of the land; 2. A fine of 29 yuan per square meter for the illegally occupying 3.96 acres totaling 2,640 square meters, totaling 76560 yuan. Sun refused to accept it and appealed to the court, requesting to revoke the first penalty content of the penalty decision.

The first instance of Xi’an Railway Transportation Court held that Article 43 of the Land Management Law stipulates that any unit or individual who needs to use land for construction must apply for the use of state-owned land in accordance with the law; however, the establishment of township enterprises and villagers Except for the use of land collectively owned by farmers collectively owned by this collective economic organization for residential construction, or the use of land collectively owned by farmers collectively for the construction of public facilities and public welfare undertakings in towns (towns) and villages. In this case, Sun built steel greenhouses and other facilities on collectively-owned land leased without approval, which did not meet the requirements of the above-mentioned laws. At the same time, based on Sun’s statement and witness Sun’s testimony, combined with Xiliu Street, Chang’an District The land master plan (2006-2020) can prove that the nature of the land occupied by Sun’s construction of steel greenhouses and other facilities is basic farmland. According to the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Regulations on the Protection of Basic Farmland, any unit or individual is prohibited from occupying basic farmland to develop forestry and fruit industries and dig ponds to raise fish. Sun’s act of occupying basic farmland to build a steel shed for planting nursery stocks and flowers does not comply with the regulations. The Xi’an Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources issued the Shiguotujianzi (2018) No. 9-102 land administrative penalty decision with conclusive evidence, correct applicable laws and regulations, and compliance with legal procedures. So the judgment dismissed Sun’s claims. After the judgment was made, neither party filed an appeal.

The Land Management Law and the “Basic Farmland Protection Regulations” clearly stipulate that the state implements a permanent basic farmland protection system. After permanent basic farmland is delimited according to law, no unit or individual may occupy or change its use without authorization. It is forbidden to occupy permanent basic farmland to develop forestry and fruit industry and dig ponds to raise fish. However, in practice, the use of basic farmland to develop non-grain industries is widespread in some places, and the problem of “non-grainization” of cultivated land is prominent. This case is a typical case in which construction was carried out on basic farmland without approval for the planting of seedlings and flowers, and was punished by the administrative agency according to law. In this case, the administrative agency paid attention to standardizing law enforcement and submitted complete evidence during the litigation process, so that the counterparty was able to appease the judgment, resolve administrative disputes more thoroughly, and achieved good political, social and legal effects.

  1. Henan Provincial Highway Engineering Bureau Group Co., Ltd. v. Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau Land Reclamation Agreement Case

On October 1, 2013, the Zhaizhuang Neighborhood Committee of Xiping County Industrial Zone and Xiping County Longsha Breeding Equipment Co., Ltd. (shareholders are Jiao XX and Yang XX) signed a land lease contract. The contract stipulates that Longsha Breeding Equipment Co., Ltd. leases the land (general cultivated land) south of the former Xishang Road of Zhaizhuang Neighborhood Committee. Mu, the lease term is 30 years, used for the construction of high-efficiency ecological agricultural breeding, industrial, commercial, processing, office and other supporting facilities. On July 8, 2014, Jiao Moumou, Yang Moumou and Henan Provincial Highway Engineering Bureau Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Henan Highway Engineering Company) signed a “yard lease agreement”, according to the agreement: Jiao Moumou, Yang sub-leased the above-mentioned parcels he leased to Henan Highway Engineering Company as temporary office and production land for the company’s project construction; the lease term is from July 8, 2014 to July 7, 2016. Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau) discovered that Henan Highway Engineering Company rented agricultural land for production and construction without approval, and carried out supervision and management. However, in view of the fact that the land used by Henan Highway Engineering Company has become a fact, to ensure After the production and construction activities are over, the original use of the land will be restored. Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau and Henan Highway Engineering Company signed two “Land Reclamation Agreements” on October 21, 2014 and March 30, 2015, respectively. The contract stipulated :Henan Highway Engineering Company must formulate a reclamation plan of 65 mu of land used in accordance with laws, regulations and policies, and carry out reclamation according to the quality and quantity of the reclamation plan. Henan Highway Engineering Company shall pay a reclamation deposit 45.5 to Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau Ten thousand yuan, the land reclamation deposit collected by the Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau will be used for land reclamation. Henan Highway Engineering Company reclaims according to the reclamation plan. After the Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau has passed the inspection and acceptance, the paid deposit will be refunded according to the supervision agreement If Henan Highway Engineering Company fails to carry out reclamation in accordance with the reclamation plan or fails to meet the requirements, the reclamation deposit shall be used for land reclamation after confiscated. After Henan Highway Engineering Company and Jiao Moumou, Yang Moumou site lease expired, Henan Highway Engineering Company transferred the houses and other attachments built by itself to Jiao Moumou for a fee, and did not reclaim the used land. On May 23, 2016, in the name of Xiping County Tongling New Energy Co., Ltd., Jiao signed a site lease contract with China Railway Seventh Bureau Group Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd., China Railway Seventh Bureau Group Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd. Continue to lease the parcel for project construction. The lease term is from May 23, 2016 to May 22, 2018. After Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau discovered that the land was leased by the Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd. of China Railway Seventh Bureau Group and used for construction activities, it signed the “Land” with the third party China Railway Seventh Bureau Group Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd. on December 2, 2016. Reclamation Agreement”, and received a land reclamation deposit of RMB 402,000 from China Railway Seventh Bureau. After the expiration of the lease term agreed by Henan Highway Engineering Company, Jiao and Yang, Jiao and Yang separately leased the land to Zhengzhou Engineering No. 4 Company of China Railway Seventh Bureau Group Co., Ltd. Henan Highway Engineering Company thought it had It is no longer possible to reclaim the land that has already paid the reclamation bond. The Zhengzhou Engineering No. 4 Company of China Railway Seventh Bureau Group Co., Ltd. should now pay the corresponding reclamation bond, and then file a lawsuit in this case, requesting an order for Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau to return Henan Highway The reclamation deposit paid by the engineering company was 455,000 yuan.

The People’s Court of Xiping County, Henan Province rejected the request of Henan Highway Engineering Company in the first instance judgment. Henan Highway Engineering Company appealed against it.

The Intermediate People’s Court of Zhumadian City, Henan Province held in the second instance that according to Article 3 of the State Council’s Land Reclamation Regulations, the land damaged by production and construction activities shall be reclaimed in accordance with the principle of The production and construction unit or individual is responsible for reclamation. In addition, according to the “Land Reclamation Agreement” signed by Henan Highway Engineering Company and Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau, Henan Highway Engineering Company is obligated to reclaim the damaged land in accordance with the reclamation plan. According to the agreement, Henan Highway Engineering Company has not If the reclamation is carried out according to the reclamation plan or the reclamation fails to meet the requirements, all the land reclamation deposits paid shall be used for land reclamation after confiscated. After the completion of the construction project, Henan Highway Engineering Company failed to fulfill the obligation of land reclamation in accordance with the “Land Reclamation Agreement”, and transferred the ground attachments built in its production and construction activities with compensation. The Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd. of China Railway Seventh Bureau Group Co., Ltd. and Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau signed the Land Reclamation Agreement, which is the land reclamation deposit paid for the damaged part of the leased land, which is not in the same legal relationship as this case. Henan Highway Engineering Company’s request to return the land reclamation deposit and the Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd. of China Railway Seventh Bureau Group Co., Ltd. to withdraw from using the land or to pay the land reclamation deposit was unfounded, and the reason for its appeal was untenable. The appeal was rejected and the original verdict was upheld.

This case clarifies that after the original land-using unit has finished using the land, if other units continue to use the land, the original land-using unit has not fulfilled the obligation of land reclamation in accordance with the land reclamation agreement or land reclamation plan or the land reclamation has not reached the standard Under the circumstances, the land reclamation responsibility shall not be exempted, which embodies the principle of “whoever damages, reclamation”, and embodies the strict protection of cultivated land from the perspective of land reclamation.

  1. Yang 1 and others sued Qi County People’s Government, Qi County Chaoge Sub-district Office, Qi County Chaoge Sub-district Office Nanyangzhuang Village Village Committee for illegal land occupation and administrative compensation

Yang 1 contracted 10.06 acres of collective land (including two plots of 7.51 acres and 2.55 acres) of Nanyangzhuang Village Villagers Committee (hereinafter referred to as Nanyangzhuang Village Committee) of Chaoge Street Office, Qi County ), and obtained the certificate of the right to contract management of rural land in accordance with the law. Yang 2, Yang 3, and Feng XX are all members of the farm household. On September 30, 2016, Yang 1 leased his contracted land to Yang 4 for farming, with a lease term of three years. On July 20, 2018, Qi County People’s Government entrusted Qi County Chaoge Sub-district Office (hereinafter referred to as Chaoge Office) and Nanyangzhuang Village Committee to remove the crops from Yang’s 4 cultivated land, including the certificate of land area 7.51 acres. As of the date of the court of first instance, the land involved in the case was idle. Yang 1, Yang 2, Yang 3, Feng Mo, and Yang 4 filed a lawsuit in this case, requesting: 1. Confirm that the defendant’s act of forcibly removing crops from the plaintiff’s contracted land and forcibly occupying the plaintiff’s contracted land on July 20, 2018 is illegal ; 2. Order the defendant to return the land involved; 3. Order the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for various economic losses of 101,000 yuan, and take corresponding remedial measures.

The Intermediate People’s Court of Hebi City, Henan Province held in the first instance that (1) In this case, Yang 1, Yang 2, Yang 3, and Feng were the right holders of the land contracted management rights and enjoyed the contracted land in accordance with the law. The right to use, profit and transfer of land contractual management rights. Yang 4 is the land lessee and enjoys the right to use the contracted land involved in the case. The five persons including Yang and others believed that the three defendants’ illegal occupation of land directly infringed their legitimate rights and interests, which complied with the first paragraph of Article 25 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Supreme People’s Court concerning the trial of administrative procedures involving rural collective land “Provisions on Several Issues in the Case” Article 4 stipulates that it is qualified as the plaintiff to initiate the lawsuit in this case.

(2) The Qi County People’s Government entrusted relevant units to forcibly occupy the contracted land involved and clear the crops on the ground, but failed to provide evidence and basis to prove the legality of their actions. It argued that “the relevant procedures are in the process of approval Stage”, violates the provisions of Articles 43 to 46 of the Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China. At the same time, the three defendants all agreed that Chaoge Office and Nanyangzhuang Village Committee accepted the work arrangement of the Qi County People’s Government and implemented compulsory acts, according to the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China” The provisions of the third paragraph of Article 20 shall be deemed to have accepted the entrustment of the Qi County People’s Government, and the legal responsibility shall be borne by the Qi County People’s Government. Therefore, Chaoge Office and Nanyangzhuang Village Committee are not qualified defendants in this case. The five plaintiffs’ request to confirm that the Qi County People’s Government on July 20, 2018 compulsory removal of crops on the contracted land and the forced occupation of land violated the law was supported.

(3) The Qi County People’s Government illegally occupied land and forced the removal of crops on the ground, causing property losses to the five plaintiffs, according to Article 4 of the National Compensation Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the National Compensation Law) According to the regulations, the five plaintiffs have the right to obtain administrative compensation according to law. The losses claimed by the five plaintiffs include: loss of destroyed crops, loss of production suspension, the defendant’s restoration of arable land sowing conditions or compensation for the cost of re-cultivation of the land, loss of work expenses for safeguarding rights, travel expenses, attorney fees and other losses, and support the reasonable part of his claim , The specific items are as follows:

  1. Loss of destroyed crops in the current and next seasons. Since the crops have been cleared and there is no condition for returning or restoring to their original state, according to the provisions of Article 36, Item 4 and Item 8 of the National Compensation Law, if the property that should be returned is lost, the corresponding compensation shall be paid. (1) Regarding the compensation standard, the five plaintiffs did not provide evidence of the market value of the destroyed crops. Therefore, the court of first instance referred to the “Notice of the Hebi City People’s Government on Adjusting the Compensation Standards for Ground Attachments and Young Crops on the National Construction Expropriated Land in Hebi City” (Hebi Zheng [2018] No. 7) The compensation standard for young crops on irrigated irrigated land is determined to be 2,800 yuan/mu per year as the compensation standard for this case. Since this standard is the compensation for young crops per acre of land for one year, it already includes the current season and the next season. Therefore, the five plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants should compensate for the loss of production suspension due to the inability to cultivate wheat in the second half of the year are not supported. (2) Regarding the compensation for the number of acres, both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the area of ​​the contracted land subject to administrative compulsory certification was 7.51 acres and was confirmed. The five plaintiffs claimed that 3 acres of wasteland should also be included. However, the unauthorized reclaiming of unused land violated my country’s land management laws and regulations. Therefore, the five plaintiffs’ request for the loss of wasteland was not supported. In summary, the Qi County People’s Government should compensate the five plaintiffs for economic losses of 2,800 yuan/mu×7.51 mu = 21028 yuan.
  2. Restore the land to a state where it can be cultivated and return it. Article 32 of the State Compensation Law stipulates that if property can be returned or restored to its original state, the property shall be returned or restored to its original state. For the land that was forcibly occupied in this case, priority should be given to returning property or restoring it to its original state, rather than compensating for restoration costs. Therefore, the five plaintiffs’ request for the defendant to restore the land to a state where it can be cultivated and return it is supported.

  3. Regarding other losses. According to the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, the five plaintiffs shall provide evidence for the losses claimed by them such as lost work expenses, travel expenses, and attorney fees. The evidence of these losses should be in the possession of the plaintiff, and is not a situation where the plaintiff cannot provide evidence due to the defendant’s reasons. The plaintiff shall bear the legal consequences of the inability to provide evidence if it fails to provide evidence. Therefore, the five plaintiffs’ claims for compensation for other losses were not supported.

To sum up, the verdict: 1. It is confirmed that the Qi County People’s Government on July 20, 2018 forcedly cleared the plaintiff’s 7.51 mu of crops on the contracted land and the forced occupation of the land was illegal; Within 30 days from the effective date of the judgment, the plaintiff shall be compensated for the property loss of 21,028 yuan; 3. Qi County People’s Government shall restore 7.51 mu of contracted land to a state that can be cultivated within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment and return it to the plaintiff; 4. Dismissed Other claims of the plaintiff.

After the judgment was made, neither party filed an appeal, and the execution has been completed.

This case is a typical case in which the administrative agency has not obtained the approval procedures for compulsory occupation of farmers’ contracted land and clearing of crops on the ground, infringing on farmers’ right to contract management of land. According to relevant laws and regulations, the state can expropriate collective land based on public interest needs, but it must follow strict land expropriation and compensation procedures. In practice, in order to speed up the work progress, some administrative agencies forcibly destroy the crops on the peasants’ farmland without legal land acquisition procedures, which is illegal. Regarding the issue of compensation caused by land occupation, this case clarifies that if the conditions for restoring to the original state are met, the ruling method of restoring to the original state should be applied first. , Has positive reference significance.

Four. The public interest litigation litigant Rongxian People’s Procuratorate v. Rongxian Natural Resources and Planning Bureau for failure to perform land administrative supervision duties

In the second half of 2014, Rongxian Hongkang Agriculture Co., Ltd. ( (Hereinafter referred to as Hongkang Company) Xie Moumou, the person in charge, transferred 27.738 acres of land in Groups 1, 2, and 9 of Shiduiwo Village, Xuyang Town, Rong County, and the agreed use was planting, breeding and agricultural economic development. In March 2015, Hongkang Co., Ltd. applied for dumping earth and stone on the parcel for land reclamation on the grounds that the slopes of the parcel were too large, which was not conducive to the planting of flowers and seedlings. The village group where it is located, the People’s Government of Xuyang Town, and Rong County Natural Resources And the Planning Bureau to approve and agree. Rongxian County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau reviewed the site selection for dumping earth and stone and collected 17,32 million yuan of Hongkang Company’s reclamation deposit. Hongkang Company dumped construction waste on the transferred land, and failed to level the land in accordance with the application time and scope for planting and breeding industry and agricultural economic development.

In April 2017, during an inspection by the Rongxian Xuyang Land and Resources Center, it was discovered that the company was suspected of dumping spoils and occupying land beyond the scope, and on the spot verbally notified Hongkang Company of the re-cultivation of the excess farming. Remediate existing safety hazards. On December 18 of the same year, Rongxian County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau issued a “Notice of Ordering to Stop Illegal Activities” (Rongguo Tuzi Su[2017] No. 196) against Hongkang Company for building structures without approval, and Hongkang Company stopped the construction.

In response to Hongkang’s long-standing behavior of dumping urban construction spoils and illegally occupying land, Rongxian People’s Procuratorate issued a case to the Rongxian Natural Resources and Planning Bureau on May 8, 2018. Rongjianxingjian (2018) No. 03) Prosecutor’s recommendations: 1. Administrative penalties for Xie’s violation of land management laws and regulations; 2. Order Xie to be responsible for reclaiming damaged cultivated land in accordance with relevant state regulations; if he does not If the conditions for reclamation or reclamation do not meet the requirements, they shall be ordered to pay the land reclamation fee in full, and the fee shall be used for the reclamation of the damaged cultivated land; 3. Carry out the restoration and reclamation of the cultivated land by Xie XX Check and supervise to ensure that rectification is in place.

After receiving the procuratorial proposal, the Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau initiated an investigation into Hongkang’s illegal activities on the 18th of the same month. On June 12 of the same year, the “Notice of Ordering the Correction of Illegal Acts” (Rongguo Tuzi Gai [2018] No. 02) was issued to Hongkang Company, and the company was ordered to pay for the occupied land within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. To request land reclamation, the company submitted a written commitment to the Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau on the same day. On June 16, Hongkang Company prepared its own reclamation plan and started land consolidation (reclamation) on the parcel according to the plan. On June 25th, Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau organized the Xuyang Town Government, County Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Bureau, County Urban Management Bureau, and County Environmental Protection Bureau to conduct an on-site inspection of the land consolidation (reclamation) progress of Hongkang Company and pointed out the existing problems . In July of the same year, Hongkang Company re-compiled the reclamation plan (including filling earth and stone, etc.) and reported it to the Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau. Hongkang Company then continued to dump the construction spoils and fill the land for land consolidation (recovery). Reclamation), leading to a further significant increase in the occupied land area. On November 27, Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau imposed a fine of 30,000 yuan for Hongkang Company’s dumping of urban construction spoils and fraudulent practices in land reclamation and implementation. In addition, there are 3 sets of defense optical cables (1 in the air and 2 underground) near the location where Hongkang illegally dumped construction spoil. Hongkang’s dumping of construction spoils caused economic losses and communication hazards to the defense optical cables.

In response to Hongkang’s fraudulent practice in land reclamation, Rongxian County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau organized another consultation with relevant departments such as agriculture and urban management. The technical staff of the Sichuan Geological and Mineral Bureau’s chemical prospecting team in 2018 In November 2011, the land consolidation (reclamation) plan was re-formulated in accordance with the relevant standards. The Shiduiwo Villagers’ Committee of Xuyang Town and Hongkang Company jointly commissioned a qualified land consolidation (reclamation) unit to carry out the reclamation work in accordance with the plan. The Rongxian Natural Resources and Planning Bureau responded in writing to the Rongxian People’s Procuratorate on July 5 and December 7, 2018 regarding the performance of land supervision duties.

On February 22, 2019, upon the application of Hongkang Company, Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau invited professionals from the County Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Bureau, County Water Affairs Bureau, and County Forestry Bureau to form land consolidation (reclamation) The work acceptance expert group, together with the County Urban Management Bureau, Xuyang Town Government, Shiduiwo Village Group cadres and member representatives, conducted on-site inspection and acceptance. The conclusion was that the construction content of the reclamation plan was basically completed, and the drainage and irrigation ditches and soil were improved for the slope Suggestions for further improvement of reclamation work were put forward for ridges, clearing of blocks and improving soil quality. Rongxian County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau will report the acceptance status to the court of first instance and Rongxian People’s Procuratorate in writing. On April 14th, Sichuan Chuanfa Environmental Damage Judicial Appraisal Institute was entrusted by the Rongxian People’s Procuratorate to organize experts to conduct on-site surveys, interviews, and verification of reclamation plans, and believed that part of the reclamation project did not meet the national land reclamation standards.

The People’s Court of Rongxian County of Sichuan Province held in the first instance that Article 4 of the Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that “the state implements a land use control system” and Article 37 stipulates that “it is forbidden for any unit or individual “Barren cultivated land”, Article 42 stipulates that “Due to land damage caused by excavation, subsidence, occupation, etc., land-using units and individuals shall be responsible for reclamation in accordance with relevant state regulations; if there are no conditions for reclamation or the reclamation does not meet the requirements, they shall The land reclamation fee shall be paid specifically for land reclamation.” Article 18 of the “Land Reclamation Regulations” stipulates that “if the obligor of land reclamation does not reclaim, or if the land reclamation is not qualified after rectification and inspection, the land shall be paid Reclamation fees shall be organized by the relevant land and resources authorities on their behalf.” Hongkang Company and its principal, Xie XX, transferred about 27 acres of agricultural land in Groups 1, 2 and 9 of Shiduiwo Village, Xuyang Town, Rong County in the name of developing planting, breeding and agricultural economic development. It is actually used for agricultural operations, but illegally dumping construction residues for profit and occupying rural land. Rongxian Natural Resources and Planning Bureau shall perform the supervision duties of land illegal conduct investigation and land reclamation according to law, but the illegal activities of Hongkang Company Failure to promptly and effectively stop and punish the land has left the occupied land in a barren state for a long time, violates agricultural use, causes the destruction of national land resources, and endangers national defense communications security. Rongxian County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau has performed certain duties after receiving the procuratorial advice, but due to inadequate performance of supervisory duties, Hongkang’s reclamation plan to continue dumping construction spoils was implemented, which further expanded the public welfare damage. The prosecutor in the public interest litigation requested a judgment to confirm that the Rongxian County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau violated the law of Hongkang Company’s illegal occupation of land and did not fully perform the land supervision and management duties, and should be supported.

After the court of first instance accepted the public interest litigation, the Rongxian Natural Resources and Planning Bureau increased the supervision of Hongkang Company’s land reclamation and organized relevant professionals, relevant departments, and grassroots on February 22, 2019 Organize and conduct on-site inspection and acceptance of reclamation. With reference to the acceptance status and the opinions of relevant experts, it is pointed out that in the land reclamation of this case, it is also necessary to improve the irrigation and drainage ditches, build the soil ridge, clear the rocks, and improve the soil quality. This still requires Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau to strengthen follow-up supervision and management to make the use of the land involved in the case conform to the nature of agricultural land. The public interest litigator’s request to order the Rong County Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning to perform the supervision and management duties of the follow-up reclamation work of Hongkang’s illegal land occupation should be supported. Based on this, the judgment:

  1. It is confirmed that Rongxian County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau violated the law of Rongxian Hongkang Agricultural Co., Ltd.’s violation of the land law for neglecting to perform its supervision and management duties;
  2. Order the Rong County Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning to perform its duties in accordance with the law on the subsequent land reclamation matters involved in this case within 90 days after the judgment takes effect.

After the first instance judgment was made, neither party filed an appeal. The Rong County Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning urged relevant enterprises to fulfill their obligation of reclamation within the time limit of the judgment, and passed the acceptance. The land involved in this case has been restored to agricultural cultivation, which has been well received by local officials and masses, and a good case handling effect has been achieved.

The Administrative Litigation Law revised in 2017 established an administrative public interest litigation system. The People’s Procuratorate discovered that administrative agencies with supervisory and management duties in areas such as ecological environment and resource protection have illegally performed their powers or failed to act in the performance of their duties. If the national interest or the public interest is violated, the procuratorial suggestion shall be submitted to the administrative agency to urge them to perform their duties in accordance with the law. If an administrative agency fails to perform its duties in accordance with the law, the People’s Procuratorate shall file a lawsuit with the People’s Court in accordance with the law. In this case, although the competent administrative agency performed certain supervision and management responsibilities for illegal land activities, it failed to perform its duties in full in accordance with the law, resulting in environmental public welfare still being violated. The People’s Procuratorate gives full play to the role of legal supervision in accordance with the law, promotes administration according to law and strict law enforcement, which fully reflects the positive significance of administrative public interest litigation in supervising administrative law enforcement, stopping and restoring damaged cultivated land in accordance with the law. In addition, in the handling of this case, the two chiefs of legal and prosecutors directly participated in the hearing, which also reflects the importance of all parties on the full protection and utilization of land resources and the promotion of ecological civilization.