Supreme law: before the court agrees to enforce the ruling, the executive authorities have no right to forcibly demolish the expropriated houses

Beijing, July 27 (Xinhua) according to the official wechat news of the Supreme People's court, on July 27, 2020, the Supreme People's court for the first time released nine typical cases of property rights related litigation. In the case of \ Li San De is a villager of Chenjia Village (hereinafter referred to as Chenjia Village) in Shennong Town, Weibin District, Baoji City. He owns homestead and houses in this group. On December 25, 2013, Baoji City Weibin District old city reconstruction leading group issued a document to establish the Chenjia village urban reconstruction office, to carry out the transformation of Chenjia village into urban village.

on September 16, 2015, Li Sande signed the \ The first instance of Baoji intermediate people's Court of Shaanxi Province held that the Weibin District authorities' Demolition of Li Sande's house was based on the consistent law implemented in the transitional formulation of demolition, and ruled to reject Li's petition. Li Sande did not submit to the first instance judgment and appealed.

The second instance of Shaanxi Provincial Higher People's court held that the compulsory demolition of Li Sande's house by chenjiacun village committee was the entrusted act on behalf of Weibin District authorities, and the legal consequences of response should be borne by Weibin District Authority. The Weibin District authorities not only made the \ When expounding the typical significance, the Supreme People's Court pointed out that in the process of land and housing expropriation, the administrative organs should abide by the principle of \ The Supreme People's Court pointed out that in this case, the Weibin District authorities carried out the demolition of the house after Li sangde vacated the house and delivered the key to the house. From the perspective of style, it seems that it is in accordance with the prescribed move, and it does not violate Li Sande's will. However, what is ignored is that this kind of \ A typical case of the Supreme People's court's litigation on property rights treasure:

First, Haikou botailong Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Haikou Municipal People's authority for paid recovery of state-owned land exercise right

Basic facts of the case In March 2007, Haikou botailong Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as botailong company) decided to obtain the exercise right of 642351.28 square meters of state owned land by means of public listing. In 2012, the original Haikou Municipal Bureau of land and resources (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Bureau of land and resources) made a number of letters, which considered that the land involved in the case had ownership disputes and problems left over by land acquisition, so the application for construction was postponed, and the application could be made after the problems were solved. Haikou Municipal People's authority (hereinafter referred to as the municipal authority) also recognized that the undeveloped land was caused by the authorities. In 2015, Hainan Provincial People's authority issued the \ (2) the final decision

The first instance of Haikou intermediate people's Court of Hainan Province held that the land involved in the case was idle due to the authorities, and the municipal authorities decided to take back the land involved in the case with compensation because of the necessity of promoting the public benefits of national economic and social development. The standard of compensation for recovering the exercise right of state-owned land stipulated in No.24 document is applicable to the situation that the land is idle due to the authority's reason, and the authorities negotiate with the land agent to the contrary. The land involved in the case must be recovered due to public benefits, but the relevant standards of idle land in Document No. 24 should be applied for compensation. Therefore, the court decided to cancel the content of \ The second instance of Hainan Higher People's court held that under the circumstances that the authorities have to exercise the land due to idle land and public interests, the authorities can not only decide to take back the exercise right of land with compensation in the disposal procedure of idle land, but also decide that the state should take back the exercise right of land in advance according to law for public benefit. If it is necessary to recover the exercise right of state-owned land for the public benefit, the exercising right holder should be given appropriate compensation. The \ (3) typical meaning

The significance of this case lies in the determination of the compensation standard for the paid recovery of state-owned land exercise right. According to the second paragraph of Article 58 of the \ (2) Gutian cuipinghu Xiyue Real Estate Co., Ltd., Fujian xijoy Investment Co., Ltd. v. Gutian County People's authority administrative formulation and compensation case

Basic facts of the case

on July 3, 2014, Gutian County People's authority (hereinafter referred to as Gutian County Authority) and Fujian xijoy Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fujian xixixiyue company) signed the current investment framework of Cuiping Lake area project in Gutian County. The total investment of the project is now about 5 billion yuan and the total land area is about 1000 mu. The project is now positioned as the modernization of hotel, residence and tourism High end eco city integration. After that, the two sides signed the \