-
性船完整版法国k8播放
Big Interests in Beijing Housing Demolition and Relocation, But who owns the Compensation?With the continuous advancement of the urbanization process, the housing demolition has been the focus of government work, and the resettlement compensation has also been the focus of public concern. On May 27th, 2003, the ninth executive meeting of Beijing Municipal People's Government passed and enacted Measures on Collective Land Housing Demolition and Relocation of Beijing. According to the Measures, all collective land houses that are demolished can be subject to monetary compensation or housing resettlement. If monetary compensation is adopted, the demolisher should reach an agreement on compensation with the house owners and pay the compensatory money to them. However, the soaring house prices in Beijing greatly drive up land prices. Demolition can bring great sudden wealth. Due to the huge amount of compensatory money for housing demolition and relocation, interest disputes are endless, and the actual situation is far more complex than the scope of law.Self-built houses were demolished, but thecompensation of demolition and relocation is paid to othersRecently, Mr. Guan from Shangcai County in Henan Province was caught in a dispute over the compensation for demolition and relocation. What was distinctive about this dispute is that in relocation household, the owner of demolished house and actual land user are different parties, so the dispute arose between the two parties on the ownership of the demolition and relocation compensation. At present, Mr. Guan has filed a lawsuit to the people's Court of Chaoyang District in Beijing, and the case is on trial.Learned from Mr. Guan, litigant of the case, the reporter found that the basic information of thecase is stated as followed:: on July 1, 2007, Mr. Guan from Henan reached an agreement with Mr. Li from Beijing on renting 5 mu of land in Guanzhuang Village of Wangsiying Town in Chaoyang District, Beijing (including a large courtyard and 12 houses), subjecting to a lease term of 9 years. Under this agreement, “If the houses built by Party B (Mr. Guan) on the land are collectively demolished by the state, the compensation for the buildings on the occupied land shall be owned by Party B (Mr. Guan) and the compensation for the occupied land shall be owned by Party A (Mr. Li).” After signing the agreement, Mr. Guan paid the rent to Mr. Li in accordance as agreed and built a total of seven rows of more than 160 houses on the land in July 2007, covering an area of about 2000 square meters, with construction costs over 1.65 million Yuan. The village committee of Guanzhuang brigade in Wangsiying town of Chaoyang district in Beijing and the house vacating work committee gave out notices on October 10th, 25th and 31st, 2013, requiring Mr. Guan to demolish the buildings and vacate the rented land.In this case, Mr. Guan has demolished all the painstakingly built houses and vacated all the rented landsat cost of great manual and material resources.The actual construction work has been conducted by Beijing Tenglong Relocation Service Co., Ltd. However, having made great efforts to demolish all the self-built houses, Mr.Guan was told that the township government had already signed a demolition and relocation compensation agreement with Mr. Liand paid full amount of the compensatory money to Mr. Li. The action that Mr. Li took away all the compensatory money has clearly violated agreed issues in the lease agreement.(Figure 1)“Although I am not the original owner of the land, I am a legal lessee, moreover, the houses are built by myself at vast expense and is owned by myself, why was the demolition compensation of house paid to Mr. Li?” Mr. Guan found it odd that the government signed the demolition and relocation compensation agreement with Mr. Li Lee and felt dissatisfied with such practice, thinking that the legitimate rights and interests that he has according to the Lease Agreement are greatly damaged thereby. Therefore, Mr. Guan decided to take the legal measures to solve the problem and to protect his own rights and interests.Mr. Guan’s petition letter is rejected, and administrative reconsideration is also of no useAfter failing to receive the compensation, Mr. Guan reported the relevant situations to the online “District Mayor’s Public Voice E-Mail” and “Mayor’s Public Voice E-Mail”. Mr. Guan also went to the public voice department personally to seek justice, but the staff officially rejected the case by claiming that it is not the dispute over demolition and relocation compensation but the dispute over the contract, and issued a Notice on Not Accepting the Petition to Mr. Guan.(Figure 2)After the petition was rejected, Mr. Guan filed a lawsuit to the court by citing lease contract disputes, requiring Mr. Lee to fulfill his obligations in accordance with the contract as agreed and return the corresponding compensatory money that belongs to party B. But Mr. Li lied that he had not received the compensation yet to evade the obligation. Seeing this situation, Mr. Guan applied to the local government for disclosing the demolition and relocation compensation agreement in accordance with the relevant provisions under Government Information Disclosure Regulation. However, Mr. Li struggled to stop and opposed disclosure by citing that it involved personal privacy. As a result, the administrative way to confirm the compensation agreement is also blocked by Mr. Li.(Figure 3)Due to omissions by the township government and the obstacles brought by Mr. Li, Mr. Guan has some difficulty in getting legal evidence through his own efforts. In order to prove his claims, Mr. Guan applied to the court for investigation and evidence collection, and went to the local government to investigate and collect evidence with court officers. But in the face of the power of the court, the township government dismissed and rejected to offer coordination by claiming that the government had nothing to do with the case and it was internal disputes over compensation allocation between two parties. The road to the key evidence through judicial means also encountered a bottleneck. Unexpectedly, we never realized how hard it is to get a demolition and relocation compensation agreement! The court's investigation order can be surprisingly refused by government.Mr. Guan is extremely puzzled about the omissions of the township governmentIt is such a temptation for everyone as an enormous amount of demolition and relocation compensation. Intending to seize great interests of compensation, Mr. Li, as an interested party, has violated the contract and refused to carry out his obligations in accordance with contract. After the court started to investigate the case, he tried in every way to conceal the truth and refused to provide evidence, and currently Mr. Guan has no other options. Moreover, Mr. Guan is really confused by the omissions of the township government, refusal to disclose and refusal to provide the relevant documents. At present, Mr. Guan’s agent has submitted supplementary agent opinions to the court, adhering to the township government and other demolition units adding to the third person, and put forward to cite the evidence rules specified in Article 75 of Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedures---“In the case of any evidence that proves that a party holds the evidence but refuses to provide it without justified reasons, the claim can be presumed to be established if the evidence that the other party claims goes against the holder.”---to be supplementary to related evidence. Will the township government appear in court or still take an omission attitude? Which party will the house demolition compensation be awarded to? The reporter will continue to follow the progress of the case and the trial results.
