目录

1．杨瑞芬诉株洲市人民政府房屋征收决定案

2．何刚诉淮安市淮阴区人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

3．孔庆丰诉泗水县人民政府房屋征收决定案

4．艾正云、沙德芳诉马鞍山市雨山区人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

5．文白安诉商城县人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

6. 霍佩英诉上海市黄浦区人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

7. 毛培荣诉永昌县人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

8. 廖明耀诉龙南县人民政府房屋强制拆迁案

9. 叶呈胜、叶呈长、叶呈发诉仁化县人民政府房屋行政强制案

10. 叶汉祥诉湖南省株洲市规划局、株洲市石峰区人民政府不履行拆除违法建筑法定职责案

一、杨瑞芬诉株洲市人民政府房屋征收决定案

（一）基本案情

2007年10月16日，株洲市房产管理局向湖南冶金职业技术学院作出株房拆迁字[2007]第19号《房屋拆迁许可证》，杨瑞芬的部分房屋在拆迁范围内，在拆迁许可期内未能拆迁。2010年，株洲市人民政府启动神农大道建设项目。2010年7月25日，株洲市发展改革委员会批准立项。2011年7月14日，株洲市规划局颁发了株规用[2011]0066号《建设用地规划许可证》。杨瑞芬的房屋位于泰山路与规划的神农大道交汇处，占地面积418㎡，建筑面积582.12㎡，房屋地面高于神农大道地面10余米，部分房屋在神农大道建设项目用地红线范围内。2011年7月15日，株洲市人民政府经论证公布了《神农大道项目建设国有土地上房屋征收补偿方案》征求公众意见。2011年9月15日，经社会稳定风险评估为C级。2011年9月30日，株洲市人民政府发布了修改后的补偿方案，并作出了[2011]第1号《株洲市人民政府国有土地上房屋征收决定》（以下简称《征收决定》），征收杨瑞芬的整栋房屋，并给予合理补偿。

杨瑞芬不服，以“申请人的房屋在湖南冶金职业技术学院新校区项目建设拆迁许可范围内，被申请人作出征收决定征收申请人的房屋，该行为与原已生效的房屋拆迁许可证冲突”和“原项目拆迁方和被申请人均未能向申请人提供合理的安置补偿方案”为由向湖南省人民政府申请行政复议。复议机关认为，原拆迁人湖南冶金职业技术学院取得的《房屋拆迁许可证》已过期，被申请人依据《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》的规定征收申请人的房屋并不违反法律规定。申请人的部分房屋在神农大道项目用地红线范围内，且房屋地平面高于神农大道地平面10余米，房屋不整体拆除将存在严重安全隐患，属于确需拆除的情形，《征收决定》内容适当，且作出前也履行了相关法律程序，故复议机关作出复议决定维持了《征收决定》。杨瑞芬其后以株州市人民政府为被告提起行政诉讼，请求撤销《征收决定》。

（二）裁判结果

株洲市天元区人民法院一审认为，关于杨瑞芬提出株洲市人民政府作出的[2011]第1号《株洲市人民政府国有土地上房屋征收决定》与株洲市房产管理局作出的株房拆迁字[2007]第19号《房屋拆迁许可证》主体和内容均相冲突的诉讼理由，因[2007]第19号《房屋拆迁许可证》已失效，神农大道属于新启动项目，两份文件并不存在冲突。关于杨瑞芬提出征收其红线范围外的房屋违法之主张，因其部分房屋在神农大道项目用地红线范围内，征收系出于公共利益需要，且房屋地面高于神农大道地面10余米，不整体拆除将产生严重安全隐患，整体征收拆除符合实际。杨瑞芬认为神农大道建设项目没有取得建设用地批准书。2011年7月14日，株洲市规划局为神农大道建设项目颁发了株规用[2011]0066号《建设用地规划许可证》。杨瑞芬认为株洲市规划局在复议程序中出具的说明不能作为超范围征收的依据。株洲市规划局在复议程序中出具的说明系另一法律关系，非本案审理范围。株洲市人民政府作出的 [2011]第1号《株洲市人民政府国有土地上房屋征收决定》事实清楚，程序合法，适用法律、法规正确，判决维持。

株洲市中级人民法院二审认为，本案争议焦点为株洲市人民政府作出的[2011]第1号《株洲市人民政府国有土地上房屋征收决定》是否合法。2010年，株洲市人民政府启动神农大道建设项目，株洲市规划局于2011年7月14日颁发了株规用[2011]0066号《建设用地规划许可证》。杨瑞芬的部分房屋在神农大道建设项目用地红线范围内，虽然征收杨瑞芬整栋房屋超出了神龙大道的专项规划，但征收其房屋系公共利益需要，且房屋地面高于神农大道地面10余米，如果只拆除规划红线范围内部分房屋，未拆除的规划红线范围外的部分房屋将人为变成危房，失去了房屋应有的价值和作用，整体征收杨瑞芬的房屋，并给予合理补偿符合实际情况，也是人民政府对人民群众生命财产安全担当责任的表现。判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于:在房屋征收过程中,如果因规划不合理,致使整幢建筑的一部分未纳入规划红线范围内,则政府出于实用性、居住安全性等因素考虑，将未纳入规划的部分一并征收，该行为体现了以人为本，有利于征收工作顺利推进。人民法院认可相关征收决定的合法性，不赞成过于片面、机械地理解法律。

二、孔庆丰诉泗水县人民政府房屋征收决定案

（一）基本案情

2011年4月6日，泗水县人民政府作出泗政发[2011]15号《泗水县人民政府关于对泗城泗河路东林业局片区和泗河路西古城路北片区实施房屋征收的决定》（以下简称《决定》），其征收补偿方案规定，选择货币补偿的，被征收主房按照该地块多层产权调换安置房的优惠价格补偿；选择产权调换的，安置房超出主房补偿面积的部分由被征收人出资，超出10平方米以内的按优惠价结算房价，超出10平方米以外的部分按市场价格结算房价;被征收主房面积大于安置房面积的部分，按照安置房优惠价增加300元/ｍ2标准给予货币补偿。原告孔庆丰的房屋在被征收范围内，其不服该《决定》，提起行政诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

济宁市中级人民法院经审理认为，根据《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》（以下简称《条例》）第二条、第十九条规定，征收国有土地上单位、个人的房屋，应当对被征收房屋所有权人给予公平补偿。对被征收房屋价值的补偿，不得低于房屋征收决定公告之日被征收房屋类似房地产的市场价格。根据立法精神，对被征收房屋的补偿，应参照就近区位新建商品房的价格，以被征收人在房屋被征收后居住条件、生活质量不降低为宜。本案中，优惠价格显然低于市场价格，对被征收房屋的补偿价格也明显低于被征收人的出资购买价格。该征收补偿方案的规定对被征收人显失公平，违反了《条例》的相关规定。故判决：撤销被告泗水县人民政府作出的《决定》。宣判后，各方当事人均未提出上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于: 《国有土地上房屋征收补偿条例》第二条规定的对被征收人给予公平补偿原则，应贯穿于房屋征收与补偿全过程。无论有关征收决定还是补偿决定的诉讼，人民法院都要坚持程序审查与实体审查相结合，一旦发现补偿方案确定的补偿标准明显低于法定的“类似房地产的市场价格”，即便对于影响面大、涉及人数众多的征收决定，该确认违法的要坚决确认违法，该撤销的要坚决撤销，以有力地维护人民群众的根本权益。

三、何刚诉淮安市淮阴区人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

（一）基本案情

2011年10月29日，淮安市淮阴区人民政府(以下称淮阴区政府)发布《房屋征收决定公告》，决定对银川路东旧城改造项目规划红线范围内的房屋和附属物实施征收。同日，淮阴区政府发布《银川路东地块房屋征收补偿方案》，何刚位于淮安市淮阴区黄河路北侧3号楼205号的房屋在上述征收范围内。经评估，何刚被征收房屋住宅部分评估单价为3901元/平方米，经营性用房评估单价为15600元/平方米。在征收补偿商谈过程中，何刚向征收部门表示选择产权调换，但双方就产权调换的地点、面积未能达成协议。2012年6月14日，淮阴区政府依征收部门申请作出淮政房征补决字[2012]01号《房屋征收补偿决定书》，主要内容：何刚被征收房屋建筑面积59.04平方米，设计用途为商住。因征收双方未能在征收补偿方案确定的签约期限内达成补偿协议，淮阴区政府作出征收补偿决定：1、被征收人货币补偿款总计607027.15元；2、被征收人何刚在接到本决定之日起7日内搬迁完毕。何刚不服，向淮安市人民政府申请行政复议，后淮安市人民政府复议维持本案征收补偿决定。何刚仍不服，遂向法院提起行政诉讼，要求撤销淮阴区政府对其作出的征收补偿决定。                                                                                                                                          

（二）裁判结果

淮安市淮阴区人民法院认为，本案争议焦点为被诉房屋征收补偿决定是否侵害了何刚的补偿方式选择权。根据《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》（以下称《条例》）第二十一条第一款规定，被征收人可以选择货币补偿，也可以选择产权调换。通过对本案证据的分析，可以认定何刚选择的补偿方式为产权调换,但被诉补偿决定确定的是货币补偿方式，侵害了何刚的补偿选择权。据此，法院作出撤销被诉补偿决定的判决。一审判决后，双方均未提起上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：在房屋补偿决定诉讼中，旗帜鲜明地维护了被征收人的补偿方式选择权。《国有土地上房屋征收补偿条例》第二十一条明确规定：“被征收人可以选择货币补偿，也可以选择房屋产权调换”，而实践中不少“官”民矛盾的产生，源于市、县级政府在作出补偿决定时，没有给被征收人选择补偿方式的机会而径直加以确定。本案的撤销判决从根本上纠正了行政机关这一典型违法情形，为当事人提供了充分的司法救济。

四、艾正云、沙德芳诉马鞍山市雨山区人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

（一）基本案情

2012年3月20日，雨山区人民政府发布雨城征[2012]2号《雨山区人民政府征收决定》及《采石古镇旧城改造项目房屋征收公告》。艾正云、沙德芳名下的马鞍山市雨山区采石九华街22号房屋位于征收范围内, 其房产证证载房屋建筑面积774.59平方米；房屋产别：私产；设计用途：商业。土地证记载使用权面积1185.9平方米；地类（用途）：综合；使用权类型：出让。2012年12月，雨山区房屋征收部门在司法工作人员全程见证和监督下，抽签确定雨山区采石九华街22号房屋的房地产价格评估机构为安徽民生房地产评估有限公司。2012年12月12日，安徽民生房地产评估有限公司向雨山区房屋征收部门提交了对艾正云、沙德芳名下房屋作出的市场价值估价报告。2013年1月16日，雨山区人民政府对被征收人艾正云、沙德芳作出雨政征补[2013]21号《房屋征收补偿决定书》。艾正云、沙德芳认为，被告作出补偿决定前没有向原告送达房屋评估结果，剥夺了原告依法享有的权利，故提起行政诉讼，请求依法撤销该《房屋征收补偿决定书》。

（二）裁判结果

马鞍山市中级人民法院认为，根据《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》第十九条的规定，被征收房屋的价值，由房地产价格评估机构按照房屋征收评估办法评估确定。对评估确定的被征收房屋价值有异议的，可以向房地产价格评估机构申请复核评估。对复核结果有异议的，可以向房地产价格评估专家委员会申请鉴定。根据住房和城乡建设部颁发的《国有土地上房屋征收评估办法》第十六条、第十七条、第二十条、第二十二条的规定，房屋征收部门应当将房屋分户初步评估结果在征收范围内向被征收人公示。公示期满后，房屋征收部门应当向被征收人转交分户评估报告。被征收人对评估结果有异议的，自收到评估报告10日内，向房地产评估机构申请复核评估。对复核结果有异议的，自收到复核结果10日内，向房地产价格评估专家委员会申请鉴定。从本案现有证据看，雨山区房屋征收部门在安徽民生房地产评估有限公司对采石九华街22号作出的商业房地产市场价值评估报告后，未将该报告内容及时送达艾正云、沙德芳并公告，致使艾正云、沙德芳对其房产评估价格申请复核评估和申请房地产价格评估专家委员会鉴定的权利丧失，属于违反法定程序。据此，判决撤销雨山区人民政府作出的雨政征补〔2013〕21号《房屋征收补偿决定书》。宣判后，各方当事人均未提出上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：通过严格的程序审查，在评估报告是否送达这一细节上，彰显了司法对被征收人获得公平补偿权的全方位保护。房屋价值评估报告是行政机关作出补偿决定最重要的依据之一，如果评估报告未及时送达，会导致被征收人申请复估和申请鉴定的法定权利无法行使，进而使得补偿决定本身失去合法性基础。本案判决敏锐地把握住了程序问题与实体权益保障的重要关联性，果断撤销了补偿决定，保障是充分到位的。

五、文白安诉商城县人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

（一）基本案情  

商城县城关迎春台区域的房屋大多建于30年前，破损严重，基础设施落后。2012年12月8日,商城县房屋征收部门发布《关于迎春台棚户区房屋征收评估机构选择公告》，提供信阳市明宇房地产估价师事务所有限公司、安徽中安房地产评估咨询有限公司、商城县隆盛房地产评估事务所作为具有资质的评估机构，由被征收人选择。后因征收人与被征收人未能协商一致，商城县房屋征收部门于12月11日发布《关于迎春台棚户区房屋征收评估机构抽签公告》，并于12月14日组织被征收人和群众代表抽签，确定信阳市明宇房地产估价师事务所有限公司为该次房屋征收的价格评估机构。2012年12月24日，商城县人民政府作出商政[2012]24号《关于迎春台安置区改造建设房屋征收的决定》。原告文白安长期居住的迎春台132号房屋在征收范围内。2013年5月10日，房地产价格评估机构出具了房屋初评报告。商城县房屋征收部门与原告在征收补偿方案确定的签约期限内未能达成补偿协议，被告于2013年7月15日依据房屋评估报告作出商政补决字[2013]3号《商城县人民政府房屋征收补偿决定书》。原告不服该征收补偿决定，向人民法院提起诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

信阳市中级人民法院认为，本案被诉征收补偿决定的合法性存在以下问题：（一）评估机构选择程序不合法。商城县房屋征收部门于2012年12月8日发布《关于迎春台棚户区房屋征收评估机构选择公告》，但商城县人民政府直到2012年12月24日才作出《关于迎春台安置区改造建设房屋征收的决定》，即先发布房屋征收评估机构选择公告，后作出房屋征收决定。这不符合《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》第二十条第一款有关“房地产价格评估机构由被征收人协商选定；协商不成的，通过多数决定、随机选定等方式确定，具体办法由省、自治区、直辖市制定”的规定与《河南省实施<国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例>的规定》第六条的规定，违反法定程序。（二）对原告文白安的房屋权属认定错误。被告在《关于文白安房屋产权主体不一致的情况说明》中称“文白安在评估过程中拒绝配合致使评估人员未能进入房屋勘察”，但在《迎春台安置区房地产权属情况调查认定报告》中称“此面积为县征收办入户丈量面积、房地产权属情况为权属无争议”。被告提供的证据相互矛盾，且没有充分证据证明系因原告的原因导致被告无法履行勘察程序。且该房屋所有权证及国有土地使用权证登记的权利人均为第三人文然而非文白安，被告对该被征收土地上房屋权属问题的认定确有错误。据此，一审法院判决撤销被诉房屋征收补偿决定。宣判后，各方当事人均未提出上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：从程序合法性、实体合法性两个角度鲜明地指出补偿决定存在的硬伤。在程序合法性方面，依据有关规定突出强调了征收决定作出后才能正式确定评估机构的基本程序要求；在实体合法性方面，强调补偿决定认定的被征收人必须适格。本案因存在征收决定作出前已确定了评估机构，且补偿决定核定的被征收人不是合法权属登记人的问题，故判决撤销补偿决定，彰显了程序公正和实体公正价值的双重意义。

六、霍佩英诉上海市黄浦区人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

（一）基本案情

上海市顺昌路281-283号283＃二层统间系原告霍佩英租赁的公有房屋，房屋类型旧里，房屋用途为居住，居住面积11.9平方米，折合建筑面积18.33平方米。该户在册户口4人，即霍佩英、孙慰萱、陈伟理、孙维强。因旧城区改建需要，2012年6月2日，被告上海市黄浦区人民政府作出黄府征[2012]2号房屋征收决定，原告户居住房屋位于征收范围内。因原告户认为其户经营公司，被告应当对其给予非居住房屋补偿，致征收双方未能在签约期限内达成征收补偿协议。2013年4月11日，房屋征收部门即第三人上海市黄浦区住房保障和房屋管理局向被告报请作出征收补偿决定。被告受理后于2013年4月16日召开审理协调会，因原告户自行离开会场致协调不成。被告经审查核实相关证据材料，于2013年4月23日作出沪黄府房征补[2013]010号房屋征收补偿决定，认定原告户被征收房屋为居住房屋，决定：一、房屋征收部门以房屋产权调换的方式补偿公有房屋承租人霍佩英户，用于产权调换房屋地址为上海市徐汇区东兰路121弄3号204室，霍佩英户支付房屋征收部门差价款476,706.84元；二、房屋征收部门给予霍佩英户各项补贴、奖励费等共计492,150元，家用设施移装费按实结算，签约搬迁奖励费按搬迁日期结算；三、霍佩英户应在收到房屋征收补偿决定书之日起15日内搬迁至上述产权调换房屋地址，将被征收房屋腾空。

原告不服该征收补偿决定，向上海市人民政府申请行政复议，上海市人民政府经复议维持该房屋征收补偿决定。原告仍不服，遂向上海市黄浦区人民法院提起行政诉讼，要求撤销被诉征收补偿决定。

（二）裁判结果

上海市黄浦区人民法院认为，被告具有作出被诉房屋征收补偿决定的行政职权，被诉房屋征收补偿决定行政程序合法，适用法律规范正确，未损害原告户的合法权益。本案的主要争议在于原告户的被征收房屋性质应认定为居住房屋还是非居住房屋。经查，孙慰萱为法定代表人的上海杨林基隆投资有限公司、上海基隆生态环保科技有限公司的住所地均为本市金山区，虽经营地址登记为本市顺昌路281号，但两公司的营业期限自2003年12月至2008年12月止，且原告承租公房的性质为居住。原告要求被告就孙慰萱经营公司给予补偿缺乏法律依据，征收补偿方案亦无此规定，被诉征收补偿决定对其以居住房屋进行补偿于法有据。据此，一审法院判决驳回原告的诉讼请求。宣判后，各方当事人均未提出上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：对如何界定被征收房屋是否属于居住房屋、进而适用不同补偿标准具有积极的借鉴意义。实践中，老百姓最关注的“按什么标准补”的前提往往是“房屋属于什么性质和用途”，这方面争议很多。法院在实践中通常依据房产登记证件所载明的用途认定房屋性质，但如果载明用途与被征收人的主张不一致，需要其提供营业执照和其他相关证据佐证，才有可能酌定不同补偿标准。本案中原告未能提供充分证据证明涉案房屋系非居住房屋，故法院不支持其诉讼请求。

七、毛培荣诉永昌县人民政府房屋征收补偿决定案

（一）基本案情

2012年1月，永昌县人民政府拟定《永昌县北海子景区建设项目国有土地上房屋征收补偿方案》，向社会公众公开征求意见。期满后，作出《关于永昌县北海子景区建设项目涉及国有土地上房屋征收的决定》并予以公告。原告毛培荣、刘吉华、毛显峰（系夫妻、父子关系）共同共有的住宅房屋一处（面积276平方米）、工业用房一处（面积775.8平方米）均在被征收范围内。经房屋征收部门通知，毛培荣等人选定评估机构对被征收房屋进行评估。评估报告作出后，毛培荣等人以漏评为由申请复核，评估机构复核后重新作出评估报告，并对漏评项目进行了详细说明。同年12月26日，房屋征收部门就补偿事宜与毛培荣多次协商无果后，告知其对房屋估价复核结果有异议可依据《国有土地上房屋征收评估办法》，在接到通知之日起10日内向金昌市房地产价格评估专家委员会申请鉴定。毛培荣在规定的期限内未申请鉴定。2013年1月9日，县政府作出永政征补（2013）第1号《关于国有土地上毛培荣房屋征收补偿决定》，对涉案被征收范围内住宅房屋、房屋室内外装饰、工业用房及附属物、停产停业损失等进行补偿，被征收人选择货币补偿，总补偿款合计人民币1842612元。毛培荣、刘吉华、毛显峰认为补偿不合理，补偿价格过低，向市政府提起行政复议。复议机关经审查维持了县政府作出的征收补偿决定。毛培荣、刘吉华、毛显峰不服，提起行政诉讼，请求撤销征收补偿决定。

（二）裁判结果

金昌市中级人民法院审理认为，县政府为公共事业的需要，组织实施县城北海子生态保护与景区规划建设，有权依照《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》的规定，征收原告国有土地上的房屋。因房屋征收部门与被征收人在征收补偿方案确定的签约期限内未达成补偿协议，县政府具有依法按照征收补偿方案作出补偿决定的职权。在征收补偿过程中，评估机构系原告自己选定，该评估机构具有相应资质，复核评估报告对原告提出的漏评项目已作出明确说明。原告对评估复核结果虽有异议，但在规定的期限内并未向金昌市房地产价格评估专家委员会申请鉴定。因此，县政府对因征收行为给原告的住宅房屋及其装饰、工业用房及其附属物、停产停业损失等给予补偿，符合《甘肃省实施<国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例>若干规定》的相关规定。被诉征收补偿决定认定事实清楚，适用法律、法规正确，程序合法。遂判决：驳回原告毛培荣、刘吉华、毛显峰的诉讼请求。宣判后，各方当事人均未提出上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院通过发挥司法监督作用，对合乎法律法规的征收补偿行为给予有力支持。在本案征收补偿过程中，征收部门在听取被征收人对征收补偿方案的意见、评估机构选择、补偿范围确定等方面，比较充分到位，保障了当事人知情权、参与权，体现了公开、公平、公正原则。通过法官释法明理，原告逐步消除了内心疑虑和不合理的心理预期，不仅未上诉，其后不久又与征收部门达成补偿协议，公益建设项目得以顺利推进，案件处理取得了较好法律效果和社会效果。

八、廖明耀诉龙南县人民政府房屋强制拆迁案

（一）基本案情

原告廖明耀的房屋位于龙南县龙南镇龙洲村东胜围小组，2011年被告龙南县人民政府批复同意建设县第一人民医院，廖明耀的房屋被纳入该建设项目拆迁范围。就拆迁安置补偿事宜，龙南县人民政府工作人员多次与廖明耀进行协商，但因意见分歧较大未达成协议。2013年2月27日，龙南县国土及规划部门将廖明耀的部分房屋认定为违章建筑，并下达自行拆除违建房屋的通知。同年3月，龙南县人民政府在未按照《行政强制法》的相关规定进行催告、未作出强制执行决定、未告知当事人诉权的情况下，组织相关部门对廖明耀的违建房屋实施强制拆除，同时对拆迁范围内的合法房屋也进行了部分拆除，导致该房屋丧失正常使用功能。廖明耀认为龙南县人民政府强制拆除其房屋和毁坏财产的行为严重侵犯其合法权益，遂于2013年7月向赣州市中级人民法院提起了行政诉讼，请求法院确认龙南县人民政府拆除其房屋的行政行为违法。赣州市中级人民法院将该案移交安远县人民法院审理。安远县人民法院受理案件后，于法定期限内向龙南县人民政府送达了起诉状副本和举证通知书，但该府在法定期限内只向法院提供了对廖明耀违建房屋进行行政处罚的相关证据，没有提供强制拆除房屋行政行为的相关证据和依据。

（二）裁判结果

安远县人民法院认为，根据《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第三十二条、第四十三条及《最高人民法院关于执行〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第二十六条之规定，被告对作出的具体行政行为负有举证责任，应当在收到起诉状副本之日起10日内提供作出具体行政行为时的证据，未提供的，应当认定该具体行政行为没有证据。本案被告龙南县人民政府在收到起诉状副本和举证通知书后，始终没有提交强制拆除房屋行为的证据，应认定被告强制拆除原告房屋的行政行为没有证据，不具有合法性。据此，依照《最高人民法院关于执行〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第五十七条第二款第（二）项之规定，确认龙南县人民政府拆除廖明耀房屋的行政行为违法。

该判决生效后，廖明耀于2014年5月向法院提起了行政赔偿诉讼。经安远县人民法院多次协调，最终促使廖明耀与龙南县人民政府就违法行政行为造成的损失及拆除其全部房屋达成和解协议。廖明耀撤回起诉，行政纠纷得以实质性解决。

（三）典型意义

本案的典型意义在于：凸显了行政诉讼中行政机关的举证责任和司法权威，对促进行政机关及其工作人员积极应诉，不断强化诉讼意识、证据意识和责任意识具有警示作用。法律和司法解释明确规定了行政机关在诉讼中的举证责任，不在法定期限提供证据，视为被诉行政行为没有证据，这是法院处理此类案件的法律底线。本案中，被告将原告的合法房屋在拆除违法建筑过程中一并拆除，在其后诉讼过程中又未能在法定期限内向法院提供据以证明其行为合法的证据，因此只能承担败诉后果。

九、叶呈胜、叶呈长、叶呈发诉仁化县人民政府房屋行政强制案

（一）基本案情

2009年间，仁化县人民政府（下称仁化县政府）规划建设仁化县有色金属循环经济产业基地，需要征收广东省仁化县周田镇新庄村民委员会新围村民小组的部分土地。叶呈胜、叶呈长、叶呈发（下称叶呈胜等三人）的房屋所占土地在被征收土地范围之内，属于未经乡镇规划批准和领取土地使用证的“两违”建筑物。2009年8月至2013年7月间，仁化县政府先后在被征收土地的村民委员会、村民小组张贴《关于禁止抢种抢建的通告》《征地通告》《征地预公告》《致广大村民的一封信》《关于责令停止一切违建行为的告知书》等文书，以调查笔录等形式告知叶呈胜等三人房屋所占土地是违法用地。2009年10月、2013年6月，仁化县国土资源局分别发出两份《通知》，要求叶呈发停止土地违法行为。2013年7月12日凌晨5时许，在未发强行拆除通知、未予公告的情况下，仁化县政府组织人员对叶呈胜等三人的房屋实施强制拆除。叶呈胜等三人遂向广东省韶关市中级人民法院提起行政诉讼，请求确认仁化县政府强制拆除行为违法。

（二）裁判结果

广东省韶关市中级人民法院认为，虽然叶呈胜等三人使用农村集体土地建房未经政府批准属于违法建筑，但仁化县政府在2013年7月12日凌晨对叶呈胜等三人所建的房屋进行强制拆除，程序上存在严重瑕疵，即采取强制拆除前未向叶呈胜等三人发出强制拆除通知，未向强拆房屋所在地的村民委员会、村民小组张贴公告限期自行拆除，违反了《中华人民共和国行政强制法》第三十四条、第四十四的规定。而且，仁化县政府在夜间实施行政强制执行，不符合《中华人民共和国行政强制法》第四十三条第一款有关“行政机关不得在夜间或者法定节假日实行强制执行”的规定。据此，依照《最高人民法院关于执行〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第五十七条的规定，判决：确认仁化县政府于2013年7月12日对叶呈胜等三人房屋实施行政强制拆除的具体行政行为违法。宣判后，各方当事人均未提出上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案的典型意义在于：充分体现了行政审判监督政府依法行政、保障公民基本权益的重要职能。即使对于违法建筑的强制拆除，也要严格遵循《行政强制法》的程序性规定，拆除之前应当先通知相对人自行拆除，在当地张贴公告且不得在夜间拆除。本案被告未遵循这些程序要求，被人民法院判决确认违法。《行政强制法》自2012年1月1日起至今施行不久，本案判决有助于推动该法在行政审判中的正确适用。

十、叶汉祥诉湖南省株洲市规划局、株洲市石峰区人民政府不履行拆除违法建筑法定职责案

（一）基本案情

2010年7月，株洲市石峰区田心街道东门社区民主村小东门散户111号户主沈富湘，在未经被告株洲市规划局等有关单位批准的情况下，将其父沈汉如遗留旧房拆除，新建和扩建新房，严重影响了原告叶汉祥的通行和采光。原告于2010年7月9日向被告株洲市规划局举报。该局于2010年10月对沈富湘新建扩建房屋进行调查、勘验，于2010年10月23日，对沈富湘作出了株规罚告（石峰）字（2010）第（462）行政处罚告知书，告知其建房行为违反《中华人民共和国城乡规划法》第四十条，属违法建设。依据《中华人民共和国城乡规划法》第六十八条之规定，限接到告知书之日起，五天内自行无偿拆除，限期不拆除的，将由株洲市石峰区人民政府组织拆除。该告知书送达沈富湘本人，其未能拆除。原告叶汉祥于2010年至2013年通过向株洲市石峰区田心街道东门社区委员会、株洲市规划局、株洲市石峰区人民政府举报和请求依法履行强制拆除沈富湘违法建筑行政义务，采取申请书等请求形式未能及时解决。2013年3月8日，被告株洲市规划局以株规罚字（石2013）字第6021号对沈富湘作出行政处罚决定书。认定沈富湘的建房行为违反《中华人民共和国城乡规划法》第四十条和《湖南省实施（中华人民共和国城乡规划法）办法》第二十五条之规定，属违法建设。依据《中华人民共和国城乡规划法》第六十四条和《湖南省实施（中华人民共和国城乡规划法）办法》第五十一条之规定，限沈富湘接到决定书之日起，三日内自行无偿拆除。如限期不自行履行本决定，依据《中华人民共和国城乡规划法》第六十八条和《湖南省实施(中华人民共和国城乡规划法)办法》第五十四条及株政发（2008）36号文件规定，将由石峰区人民政府组织实施强制拆除。由于被告株洲市规划局、株洲市石峰区人民政府未能完全履行拆除违法建筑法定职责，原告于2013年6月5日向法院提起行政诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

株洲市荷塘区人民法院认为，被告株洲市石峰区人民政府于2010年12月接到株洲市规划局对沈富湘株规罚告字（2010）第004号行政处罚告知书和株规罚字（石2013）第0021号行政处罚决定书后，应按照株洲市规划局的授权积极履行法定职责，组织实施强制拆除违法建设。虽然被告株洲市石峰区人民政府在履行职责中对沈富湘违法建设进行协调等工作，但未积极采取措施，其拆除违法建设工作未到位，属于不完全履行拆除违法建筑的法定职责。根据《中华人民共和国城乡规划法》第六十八条、《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十四条第三款的规定，判决被告株洲市石峰区人民政府在三个月内履行拆除沈富湘违法建设法定职责的行政行为。宣判后，各方当事人均未提出上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：以违法建设相邻权人提起的行政不作为诉讼为载体，有效发挥司法能动性，督促行政机关切实充分地履行拆除违建、保障民生的法定职责。针对各地违法建设数量庞大，局部地区有所蔓延的态势，虽然《城乡规划法》规定了县级以上人民政府对违反城市规划、乡镇人民政府对违反乡村规划的违法建设有权强制拆除，但实际情况不甚理想。违法建设侵犯相邻权人合法权益难以救济成为一种普遍现象和薄弱环节，本案判决在这一问题上表明法院应有态度：即使行政机关对违建采取过一定查处措施，但如果不到位仍构成不完全履行法定职责，法院有权要求行政机关进一步履行到位。这方面审判力度需要不断加强。

catalogue

1. Yang Ruifen v. Zhuzhou Municipal People's Government's Decision on Housing Expropriation

2. He Gang v. The People's Government of Huaiyin District, Huai'an City, Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

3. Kong Qingfeng v. Sishui County People's Government's Decision on Housing Expropriation

4. Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang v. Decision of the People's Government of Yushan District, Ma'anshan City on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

5. Wenbai'an v. Shangcheng County People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

6. Huo Peiying v. Shanghai Huangpu District People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

7. Mao Peirong v. Yongchang County People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

8. Liao Mingyao v. Longnan County People's Government for Compulsory House Demolition

9. Ye Chengsheng, Ye Chengchang, and Ye Cheng filed a lawsuit against the Renhua County People's Government for housing administrative coercion

10. Ye Hanxiang v. Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau and Shifeng District People's Government of Zhuzhou City in Hunan Province for Not Fulfilling the Legal Duty of Demolition of Illegal Buildings

1、 Yang Ruifen v. Zhuzhou Municipal People's Government's Decision on Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 16, 2007, the Zhuzhou Real Estate Management Bureau issued the Zhufang Demolition and Demolition Permit [2007] No. 19 to Hunan Metallurgical Vocational and Technical College, stating that some of Yang Ruifen's houses were within the scope of demolition and could not be demolished during the demolition permit period. In 2010, the People's Government of Zhuzhou City launched the construction project of Shennong Avenue. On July 25, 2010, the Development and Reform Commission of Zhuzhou City approved the project. On July 14, 2011, the Planning Bureau of Zhuzhou City issued the "Construction Land Planning Permit" (ZGY [2011] No. 0066). Yang Ruifen's house is located at the intersection of Mount Taishan Road and the planned Shennong Avenue, covering an area of 418 ㎡, with a building area of 582.12 ㎡. The floor of the house is more than 10 meters above the floor of Shennong Avenue, and some houses are within the red line of the land for the construction project of Shennong Avenue. On July 15, 2011, the People's Government of Zhuzhou City, after discussion, released the "Compensation Plan for Housing Expropriation on State owned Land for the Construction of Shennong Avenue Project" to solicit public opinions. On September 15, 2011, the stability risk assessment of the Economic and Social Council was classified as Level C. On September 30, 2011, the People's Government of Zhuzhou City issued a revised compensation plan and issued [2011] No. 1 "Zhuzhou City People's Government's Decision on the Expropriation of Houses on State owned Land" (hereinafter referred to as the "Expropriation Decision"), which expropriated the entire house of Yang Ruifen and provided reasonable compensation.

Yang Ruifen is dissatisfied and applies for administrative reconsideration to the Hunan Provincial People's Government on the grounds that "the applicant's house is within the scope of the construction and demolition permit for the new campus project of Hunan Metallurgical Vocational and Technical College, and the respondent has made a decision to expropriate the applicant's house, which conflicts with the original effective house demolition permit" and "both the original project demolition party and the respondent have failed to provide a reasonable resettlement compensation plan to the applicant". The reconsideration authority believes that the "Housing Demolition Permit" obtained by the former demolition worker Hunan Metallurgical Vocational and Technical College has expired, and the respondent's expropriation of the applicant's house in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on Housing Expropriation and Compensation on State owned Land" does not violate legal provisions. Some of the applicant's houses are within the red line of the Shennong Avenue project land, and the ground level of the houses is more than 10 meters higher than the ground level of Shennong Avenue. If the houses are not demolished as a whole, there will be serious safety hazards, which is a situation that truly needs to be demolished. The content of the "Expropriation Decision" is appropriate, and relevant legal procedures have been followed before it is made. Therefore, the reconsideration authority has made a reconsideration decision to maintain the "Expropriation Decision". Yang Ruifen subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Government of Zhuzhou City as the defendant, requesting the revocation of the "Acquisition Decision".

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tianyuan District, Zhuzhou City, in the first instance, held that regarding Yang Ruifen's claim that the main body and content of the [2011] No. 1 "Zhuzhou City People's Government's Decision on the Expropriation of Houses on State owned Land" and the [2007] No. 19 "Housing Demolition Permit" made by the Zhuzhou Real Estate Management Bureau conflict, as the [2007] No. 19 "Housing Demolition Permit" has become invalid, Shennong Avenue is a newly launched project, There is no conflict between the two documents. Regarding Yang Ruifen's claim that the expropriation of houses outside the red line is illegal, as some of his houses are within the red line of the Shennong Avenue project land, the expropriation is for public interest purposes, and the ground level of the houses is more than 10 meters above the ground level of Shennong Avenue. Failure to demolish them as a whole will create serious safety hazards, and the overall expropriation and demolition is in line with reality. Yang Ruifen believes that the construction project of Shennong Avenue has not obtained approval for construction land. On July 14, 2011, the Planning Bureau of Zhuzhou City issued the Construction Land Planning Permit (ZGY [2011] No. 0066) for the Shennong Avenue construction project. Yang Ruifen believes that the explanation issued by the Zhuzhou Planning Bureau in the review process cannot be used as a basis for exceeding the scope of expropriation. The statement issued by the Zhuzhou Planning Bureau in the review process is another legal relationship and is not within the scope of this case. The [2011] No. 1 Decision of the People's Government of Zhuzhou on the Expropriation of Houses on State owned Land made by the People's Government of Zhuzhou City has clear facts, legal procedures, correct application of laws and regulations, and the judgment is upheld.

The second instance of the Zhuzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the focus of controversy in this case is whether the Zhuzhou Municipal People's Government's [2011] No. 1 "Zhuzhou Municipal People's Government's Decision on the Expropriation of Houses on State owned Land" is legal. In 2010, the People's Government of Zhuzhou City launched the construction project of Shennong Avenue. On July 14, 2011, the Planning Bureau of Zhuzhou City issued the "Construction Land Planning Permit" (ZGY [2011] No. 0066). Some of Yang Ruifen's houses are within the red line of the construction project on Shennong Avenue. Although the expropriation of Yang Ruifen's entire house exceeds the special planning of Shenlong Avenue, the expropriation of his house is a public interest requirement, and the ground level of the house is more than 10 meters above the ground level of Shennong Avenue. If only some of the houses within the planned red line are demolished, the remaining houses outside the planned red line will be artificially turned into dangerous houses, The loss of the value and function of the house and the overall expropriation of Yang Ruifen's house with reasonable compensation are in line with the actual situation, which is also a manifestation of the people's government's responsibility for the safety of people's lives and property. The judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that in the process of housing expropriation, if a part of the entire building is not included in the planning red line due to unreasonable planning, the government will expropriate the part that is not included in the planning due to factors such as practicality and residential safety. This behavior reflects the people-oriented approach and is conducive to the smooth progress of the expropriation work. The people's court recognizes the legality of relevant expropriation decisions and does not approve of overly one-sided and mechanical understanding of the law.

2、 Kong Qingfeng v. Sishui County People's Government's Decision on Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On April 6, 2011, the People's Government of Sishui County issued the "Decision of the People's Government of Sishui County on the Implementation of Housing Expropriation in the East Forestry Bureau Area of Sihe Road and the North Area of West Gucheng Road of Sihe Road" (hereinafter referred to as the "Decision"). The expropriation compensation plan stipulates that if monetary compensation is chosen, the expropriated main house shall be compensated at the preferential price of the multi-level property rights of the land for resettlement housing; For those who choose to exchange property rights, the portion of the resettlement house that exceeds the compensation area of the main house shall be funded by the expropriatee. For those exceeding 10 square meters, the housing price shall be settled at a discounted price, while for those exceeding 10 square meters, the housing price shall be settled at the market price; For the part where the area of the expropriated main house is greater than the area of the resettlement house, monetary compensation will be given based on an increase of 300 yuan/m2 in the preferential price of the resettlement house. The plaintiff Kong Qingfeng's house is within the scope of expropriation, and he is not satisfied with the "Decision" and has filed an administrative lawsuit.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City believes that according to Article 2 and Article 19 of the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State owned Land" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), when expropriating houses owned by units or individuals on State owned land, fair compensation should be given to the owners of the expropriated houses. The compensation for the value of the expropriated property shall not be lower than the market price of similar real estate of the expropriated property on the date of the announcement of the housing expropriation decision. According to the legislative spirit, compensation for expropriated houses should refer to the price of newly built commercial houses in the nearby location, and it is advisable for the expropriated person to maintain their living conditions and quality of life after the house is expropriated. In this case, the preferential price is clearly lower than the market price, and the compensation price for the expropriated property is also significantly lower than the purchase price of the expropriated person's investment. The provisions of this expropriation compensation plan are obviously unfair to the expropriated and violate the relevant provisions of the Regulations. Therefore, the judgment is to revoke the "Decision" made by the defendant Sishui County People's Government. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the principle of fair compensation for the expropriated person stipulated in Article 2 of the "Regulations on Compensation for the Expropriation of Buildings on State owned Land" should run through the entire process of housing expropriation and compensation. Whether it is litigation related to expropriation decisions or compensation decisions, the people's court should adhere to a combination of procedural review and substantive review. Once it is found that the compensation standard determined by the compensation plan is significantly lower than the statutory "market price similar to real estate", even for expropriation decisions with a large impact and involving a large number of people, those that need to be confirmed as illegal must be firmly confirmed, and those that need to be revoked must be firmly revoked, To effectively safeguard the fundamental rights and interests of the people.

3、 He Gang v. Decision of the People's Government of Huaiyin District, Huai'an City on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 29, 2011, the Huaiyin District People's Government of Huai'an City (hereinafter referred to as the Huaiyin District Government) issued a "Notice on the Decision of Housing Expropriation", deciding to expropriate the houses and attachments within the planned red line of the Yinchuan Road East Old City Renovation Project. On the same day, the Huaiyin District Government issued the "Compensation Plan for the Acquisition of Buildings on the East Plot of Yinchuan Road", stating that He Gang's house located at Building 205, No. 3, North of Huanghe Road, Huaiyin District, Huai'an City is within the scope of the aforementioned expropriation. After evaluation, the assessed unit price for the residential part of He Gang's expropriated property is 3901 yuan/square meter, and the assessed unit price for commercial use is 15600 yuan/square meter. During the negotiation process of compensation for expropriation, He Gang expressed to the expropriation department that he chose to exchange property rights, but the two parties failed to reach an agreement on the location and area of the exchange. On June 14, 2012, the Huaiyin District Government issued the Huaizheng Fangzheng Supplementary Decision No. [2012] 01 "Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation" based on the application of the expropriation department. The main content is: He Gang's expropriated house has a construction area of 59.04 square meters and is designed for commercial and residential purposes. Due to the failure of both parties to reach a compensation agreement within the agreed period of the expropriation compensation plan, the Huaiyin District Government made a decision on expropriation compensation: 1. The total monetary compensation for the expropriated party is 607027.15 yuan; 2. The expropriated person He Gang shall complete the relocation within 7 days from the date of receiving this decision. He Gang was not satisfied and applied for administrative reconsideration to the People's Government of Huai'an City. Later, the Huai'an City People's Government upheld the decision on compensation for expropriation in this case. He Gang remained dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit with the court, demanding the revocation of the expropriation compensation decision made by the Huaiyin District Government.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huaiyin District, Huai'an City believes that the focus of controversy in this case is whether the compensation decision for the expropriation of the sued house infringes on He Gang's right to choose the compensation method. According to Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Buildings on State owned Land" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), the expropriated party may choose monetary compensation or property rights exchange. Through the analysis of the evidence in this case, it can be determined that the compensation method chosen by He Gang is property exchange, but the compensation decision against him is determined to be monetary compensation, which infringes on He Gang's right to choose compensation. Based on this, the court made a judgment revoking the defendant's compensation decision. After the first instance judgment, neither party filed an appeal.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that in the litigation of housing compensation decision, it clearly upholds the right of the expropriated person to choose the compensation method. Article 21 of the "Regulations on Compensation for the Expropriation of Buildings on State owned Land" clearly stipulates that "the expropriated person can choose monetary compensation or exchange of property rights". However, in practice, many conflicts between the government and the people arise because the city and county governments do not give the expropriated person the opportunity to choose compensation methods when making compensation decisions and directly determine them. The revocation of the judgment in this case fundamentally corrected the typical illegal situation of administrative agencies and provided sufficient judicial relief for the parties involved.

4、 Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang v. Decision of the People's Government of Yushan District, Ma'anshan City on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 20, 2012, the Yushan District People's Government issued Yuchengzheng [2012] No. 2 "Yushan District People's Government Acquisition Decision" and "Notice on Housing Acquisition for the Old City Renovation Project of Caishi Ancient Town". The house at No. 22 Caishi Jiuhua Street, Yushan District, Ma'anshan City, under the names of Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang, is located within the scope of expropriation, and its property certificate shows a building area of 774.59 square meters; Property type: private property; Designed for commercial use. The land certificate records a land use right area of 1185.9 square meters; Land type (purpose): comprehensive; Type of Use Right: Transfer. In December 2012, the housing expropriation department in Yushan District, under the full witness and supervision of judicial staff, drew lots to determine that Anhui Minsheng Real Estate Evaluation Co., Ltd. was the real estate price evaluation agency for the house at No. 22 Jiuhua Street, Caishi, Yushan District. On December 12, 2012, Anhui Minsheng Real Estate Appraisal Co., Ltd. submitted a market value appraisal report on the properties under the names of Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang to the housing expropriation department in Yushan District. On January 16, 2013, the People's Government of Yushan District issued the Yuzheng Zhengbu [2013] No. 21 "Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation" to the expropriated individuals Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang. Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang believe that the defendant did not deliver the housing evaluation results to the plaintiff before making the compensation decision, depriving the plaintiff of the rights enjoyed by law. Therefore, they file an administrative lawsuit and request the revocation of the "Housing Acquisition Compensation Decision" in accordance with the law.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Ma'anshan City believes that according to Article 19 of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State owned Land, the value of the expropriated houses shall be determined by the real estate price evaluation agency in accordance with the evaluation methods for house expropriation. If there are objections to the value of the expropriated property determined through evaluation, they can apply to the real estate price evaluation agency for review and evaluation. If there are objections to the review results, they can apply for appraisal to the Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee. According to the provisions of Article 16, Article 17, Article 20, and Article 22 of the "Measures for the Evaluation of House Expropriation on State owned Land" issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development, the housing expropriation department shall disclose the preliminary evaluation results of the individual houses within the scope of expropriation to the expropriated persons. After the expiration of the public notice period, the housing expropriation department shall transfer the household assessment report to the expropriated person. If the expropriated party has objections to the evaluation results, they shall apply to the real estate evaluation agency for review and evaluation within 10 days of receiving the evaluation report. If there are objections to the review results, within 10 days of receiving the review results, apply for appraisal to the Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee. From the existing evidence in this case, it can be seen that the housing expropriation department in Yushan District failed to timely deliver the content of the commercial real estate market value evaluation report made by Anhui Minsheng Real Estate Evaluation Co., Ltd. on No. 22 Caishi Jiuhua Street to Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang for public announcement, resulting in the loss of the right of Ai Zhengyun and Sha Defang to apply for review and evaluation of their property evaluation price and appraisal by the Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee, It is a violation of legal procedures. Based on this, the judgment revokes the Yuzheng Zhengbu [2013] No. 21 "Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation" made by the People's Government of Yushan District. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that through strict procedural review, it highlights the comprehensive protection of the judiciary for the right of the expropriated person to fair compensation in evaluating the details of whether the report has been delivered. The housing value evaluation report is one of the most important basis for administrative agencies to make compensation decisions. If the evaluation report is not delivered in a timely manner, it will result in the inability of the expropriated person to exercise their legal rights to apply for re evaluation and appraisal, thereby losing the legitimacy of the compensation decision itself. The judgment in this case keenly grasped the important correlation between procedural issues and the protection of substantive rights and interests, and decisively revoked the compensation decision, ensuring that the protection was fully in place.

5、 Wenbai'an v. Shangcheng County People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

Most of the houses in the Yingchun Terrace area of Shangcheng County were built 30 years ago, with severe damage and outdated infrastructure. On December 8, 2012, the housing expropriation department of Shangcheng County issued a notice on the selection of housing expropriation and evaluation institutions in the Yingchuntai shantytown, providing Xinyang Mingyu Real Estate Appraiser Co., Ltd., Anhui Zhong'an Real Estate Appraisal Consulting Co., Ltd., and Shangcheng County Longsheng Real Estate Appraisal Office as qualified evaluation institutions to be selected by the expropriated party. Later, due to the inability of the expropriator and the expropriated to reach a consensus, the Shangcheng County Housing Collection Department issued a "Notice on the Lotting of Housing Collection and Evaluation Institutions in Yingchuntai Shantytown" on December 11, and organized a lottery for the expropriated and public representatives on December 14 to determine Xinyang Mingyu Real Estate Appraiser Co., Ltd. as the price evaluation institution for the housing collection. On December 24, 2012, the People's Government of Shangcheng County made a decision on the expropriation of houses for the renovation and construction of the Yingchuntai Resettlement Area (Shang Zheng [2012] No. 24). The plaintiff Wen Bai'an's long-term residence at No. 132 Yingchuntai is within the scope of expropriation. On May 10, 2013, the real estate price evaluation agency issued a preliminary housing evaluation report. The housing expropriation department of Shangcheng County and the plaintiff failed to reach a compensation agreement within the contract period determined in the expropriation compensation plan. On July 15, 2013, the defendant made the "Shangcheng County People's Government Housing Expropriation Compensation Decision Letter [2013] No. 3" based on the housing evaluation report. The plaintiff is not satisfied with the expropriation compensation decision and has filed a lawsuit with the people's court.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Xinyang City believes that there are the following issues with the legality of the sued expropriation compensation decision in this case: (1) The selection process of the evaluation institution is illegal. The housing expropriation department of Shangcheng County issued the "Announcement on the Selection of Housing Expropriation and Evaluation Institutions for Yingchuntai Shantytown on December 8, 2012". However, the People's Government of Shangcheng County did not make the "Decision on Housing Expropriation for the Reconstruction and Construction of Yingchuntai Resettlement Area" until December 24, 2012, which first issued the announcement on the selection of housing expropriation and evaluation institutions, and then made the housing expropriation decision. This does not comply with the provisions of Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Buildings on State owned Land, which states that "the real estate price evaluation institution shall be selected through consultation by the expropriated party; if consultation fails, it shall be determined through majority decision, random selection, and other methods, and the specific measures shall be formulated by the province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government", as well as Article 6 of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Buildings on State owned Land in Henan Province, which violates legal procedures. （2） The determination of the property ownership of the plaintiff Wen Baian was incorrect. The defendant stated in the "Explanation on the Inconsistency of Property Ownership Subjects in Wenbaian's Housing" that "Wenbaian refused to cooperate during the evaluation process, resulting in the evaluators not being able to enter the housing survey." However, in the "Investigation and Determination Report on the Real Estate Ownership of the Yingchuntai Resettlement Area," it was stated that "this area is the measured area of the county's expropriation office, and the real estate ownership is undisputed. The evidence provided by the defendant is contradictory and lacks sufficient evidence to prove that it was due to the plaintiff's reasons that the defendant was unable to perform the investigation procedure. Moreover, both the property ownership certificate and the state-owned land use certificate registered by the defendant are third parties, but not Wen Bai'an. The defendant's determination of the ownership of the property on the expropriated land was indeed incorrect. Based on this, the first instance court ruled to revoke the compensation decision for the expropriation of the sued house. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in clearly pointing out the hard wounds in compensation decisions from the perspectives of procedural legality and substantive legality. In terms of procedural legality, according to relevant regulations, it is emphasized that the basic procedural requirements for formally determining the evaluation agency can only be made after the expropriation decision is made; In terms of substantive legality, it is emphasized that the expropriated person identified in the compensation decision must be qualified. In this case, due to the issue that the assessment agency was already determined before the expropriation decision was made, and the compensation decision was not approved by the legitimate ownership registrant, the decision to revoke the compensation decision highlights the dual significance of procedural fairness and substantive fairness.

6、 Huo Peiying v. Shanghai Huangpu District People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

The second floor apartment of 283 #, No. 281-283 Shunchang Road, Shanghai, is a publicly owned house leased by the plaintiff Huo Peiying. The house is an old house with a residential area of 11.9 square meters, equivalent to a building area of 18.33 square meters. The household has 4 registered residents, namely Huo Peiying, Sun Weixuan, Chen Weili, and Sun Weiqiang. Due to the need for the renovation of the old urban area, on June 2, 2012, the defendant, the People's Government of Huangpu District, Shanghai, made a housing expropriation decision numbered Huangfuzheng [2012] 2, stating that the plaintiff's household's residential property was within the scope of expropriation. Due to the plaintiff's belief that their household operates a company and the defendant should provide compensation for non residential housing, the expropriation parties were unable to reach a expropriation compensation agreement within the signing period. On April 11, 2013, the housing expropriation department, the third party, the Housing Security and Housing Management Bureau of Huangpu District, Shanghai, reported to the defendant for a decision on compensation for expropriation. After the defendant accepted the case, a trial coordination meeting was held on April 16, 2013, but coordination was unsuccessful due to the plaintiff leaving the meeting on their own. After reviewing and verifying relevant evidence materials, the defendant made a decision on compensation for the expropriation of the house (Hu Huang Fu Fang Zheng Bu [2013] No. 010) on April 23, 2013, which determined that the plaintiff's house was expropriated as a residential property. The decision was made as follows: 1. The housing expropriation department compensated the lessee of the public house, Huo Peiying, by exchanging property rights, with the address of Room 204, No. 3, Lane 121, Donglan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, Huo Peiying paid a price difference of 476706.84 yuan to the housing expropriation department; 2、 The housing expropriation department provides a total of 492150 yuan in subsidies and reward fees to Huo Peiying's household. The relocation and installation fees for household facilities are settled based on the actual situation, and the signed relocation reward fees are settled based on the relocation date; 3、 Hopei Ying households should relocate to the above-mentioned property exchange address within 15 days from the date of receiving the compensation decision for property expropriation, and vacate the expropriated property.

The plaintiff is not satisfied with the compensation decision for expropriation and applies for administrative reconsideration to the Shanghai Municipal People's Government. After reconsideration, the Shanghai Municipal People's Government maintains the compensation decision for expropriation of the house. The plaintiff remained dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai, demanding the revocation of the sued expropriation compensation decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai believes that the defendant has the administrative authority to make a decision on compensation for the expropriation of the sued house. The administrative procedure for the compensation decision for the expropriation of the sued house is legal, the application of legal norms is correct, and the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff's household are not harmed. The main controversy in this case lies in whether the nature of the expropriated property of the plaintiff's household should be recognized as a residential or non residential property. After investigation, it was found that Shanghai Yanglin Jilong Investment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Jilong Ecological and Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd., both of which Sun Weixuan is the legal representative, have their residences in Jinshan District of this city. Although their business address is registered as No. 281 Shunchang Road, this city, their business term is from December 2003 to December 2008, and the plaintiff's rental of public housing is for residential purposes. The plaintiff's demand for compensation from Sun Weixuan's operating company lacks legal basis, and there is no such provision in the expropriation compensation plan. The defendant's expropriation compensation decision to compensate for his residential property is legally valid. Based on this, the first instance court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit request. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that it has positive reference significance for how to define whether the expropriated house belongs to residential housing and apply different compensation standards. In practice, the premise that the people are most concerned about "what standard to supplement" is often "what nature and purpose the house belongs to", which is controversial in this regard. In practice, the court usually determines the nature of the property based on the purpose stated in the property registration certificate. However, if the stated purpose is inconsistent with the claims of the expropriated party, it is necessary for them to provide a business license and other relevant evidence to support the determination of different compensation standards. In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the property in question was a non residential property, so the court did not support its claim.

7、 Mao Peirong v. Yongchang County People's Government's Decision on Compensation for Housing Expropriation

（1） Basic facts of the case

In January 2012, the People's Government of Yongchang County drafted the "Compensation Plan for the Acquisition of Houses on State owned Land for the Construction Project of Beihaizi Scenic Area in Yongchang County" and publicly solicited opinions from the public. After the expiration of the term, the decision on the expropriation of houses on state-owned land related to the construction project of Beihaizi Scenic Area in Yongchang County will be made and announced. The plaintiffs Mao Peirong, Liu Jihua, and Mao Xianfeng (married, father son relationship) jointly owned one residential house (with an area of 276 square meters) and one industrial house (with an area of 775.8 square meters), all within the scope of expropriation. After being notified by the housing expropriation department, Mao Peirong and others have selected an evaluation institution to evaluate the expropriated houses. After the evaluation report was made, Mao Peirong and others applied for a review on the grounds of missing evaluations. After the review by the evaluation agency, a new evaluation report was made and detailed explanations were provided for the missing evaluation items. On December 26 of the same year, after multiple unsuccessful negotiations with Mao Peirong regarding compensation matters, the housing expropriation department informed them that if they had any objections to the results of the housing valuation review, they could apply for appraisal to the Jinchang Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee within 10 days from the date of receiving the notice in accordance with the "Evaluation Measures for Housing Expropriation on State owned Land". Mao Peirong did not apply for appraisal within the specified time limit. On January 9, 2013, the county government made Yongzheng Zhengbu (2013) No. 1 "Decision on Compensation for the Expropriation of Mao Peirong Housing on State owned Land", compensating for residential houses, indoor and outdoor decoration of houses, industrial houses and accessories, and losses from production and business stoppage within the scope of the expropriation involved. The expropriated party chose monetary compensation, with a total compensation amount of RMB 1842612. Mao Peirong, Liu Jihua, and Mao Xianfeng believe that the compensation is unreasonable and the compensation price is too low, and they have filed an administrative reconsideration with the municipal government. The reconsideration authority has reviewed and upheld the county government's decision on expropriation compensation. Mao Peirong, Liu Jihua, and Mao Xianfeng were dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit requesting the revocation of the expropriation compensation decision.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Jinchang City held that the county government has the right to expropriate houses on the plaintiff's state-owned land in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State owned Land" by organizing the implementation of ecological protection and scenic area planning and construction in Beihaizi, the county town, for the needs of public utilities. Due to the failure of the housing expropriation department and the expropriated party to reach a compensation agreement within the agreed period of the expropriation compensation plan, the county government has the authority to make compensation decisions in accordance with the expropriation compensation plan in accordance with the law. In the process of expropriation and compensation, the evaluation institution is selected by the plaintiff themselves, and the evaluation institution has corresponding qualifications. The review evaluation report has clearly explained the omitted evaluation items proposed by the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff had objections to the evaluation and review results, they did not apply for appraisal to the Jinchang Real Estate Price Evaluation Expert Committee within the specified period. Therefore, the county government shall provide compensation to the plaintiff for residential houses and their decorations, industrial houses and their attachments, and losses from production and business suspension due to the expropriation behavior, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Regulations on the Implementation of Housing Expropriation and Compensation on State owned Land in Gansu Province". The determination of the facts in the sued expropriation compensation decision is clear, the application of laws and regulations is correct, and the procedure is legal. Sui Judgment: Reject the litigation requests of the plaintiffs Mao Peirong, Liu Jihua, and Mao Xianfeng. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court provides strong support for expropriation compensation actions that comply with laws and regulations by playing a judicial supervisory role. In the process of expropriation and compensation in this case, the expropriation department fully and effectively listened to the opinions of the expropriated party on the expropriation and compensation plan, selected evaluation institutions, and determined the compensation scope, ensuring the parties' right to know and participate, and reflecting the principles of openness, fairness, and impartiality. Through the judge's interpretation of the law and reasoning, the plaintiff gradually eliminated their inner doubts and unreasonable psychological expectations. Not only did they not appeal, but soon after they reached a compensation agreement with the expropriation department, the public welfare construction project was smoothly promoted, and the case processing achieved good legal and social effects.

8、 Liao Mingyao v. Longnan County People's Government for Compulsory Demolition of Buildings

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Liao Mingyao's house is located in Dongshengwei Group, Longzhou Village, Longnan Town, Longnan County. In 2011, the defendant Longnan County People's Government approved the construction of the County First People's Hospital, and Liao Mingyao's house was included in the demolition scope of the construction project. Regarding the compensation for demolition and resettlement, staff from the Longnan County People's Government have had multiple consultations with Liao Mingyao, but due to significant differences of opinion, no agreement has been reached. On February 27, 2013, the Land and Planning Department of Longnan County identified some of Liao Mingyao's houses as illegal buildings and issued a notice to demolish the illegal buildings on their own. In March of the same year, the People's Government of Longnan County organized relevant departments to forcibly demolish Liao Mingyao's illegally built houses without following the relevant provisions of the Administrative Compulsory Law, making mandatory enforcement decisions, and informing the parties of their litigation rights. At the same time, they also partially demolished the legitimate houses within the scope of demolition, resulting in the loss of their normal use function. Liao Mingyao believed that the forced demolition of his house and destruction of property by the Longnan County People's Government seriously violated his legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, in July 2013, he filed an administrative lawsuit with the Ganzhou Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to confirm that the administrative act of the Longnan County People's Government demolishing his house was illegal. The Intermediate People's Court of Ganzhou City transferred the case to the People's Court of Anyuan County for trial. After accepting the case, the Anyuan County People's Court served a copy of the complaint and a notice of proof to the Longnan County People's Government within the statutory period. However, the government only provided the court with relevant evidence of administrative punishment for Liao Mingyao's illegal building within the statutory period, and did not provide relevant evidence and basis for the administrative act of forced demolition of the house.

（2） Judgment results

The Anyuan County People's Court believes that, in accordance with Articles 32 and 43 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 26 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant has the burden of proof for the specific administrative action taken and should provide evidence for the specific administrative action taken within 10 days from the date of receiving a copy of the complaint, If it is not provided, it shall be deemed that there is no evidence for the specific administrative act. The defendant Longnan County People's Government in this case, after receiving a copy of the complaint and the notice of proof, has not submitted evidence of the forced demolition of the plaintiff's house. Therefore, it should be determined that the defendant's administrative act of forcibly demolishing the plaintiff's house lacks evidence and does not have legality. Based on this, in accordance with the provisions of Article 57, Paragraph 2 (2) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, it is confirmed that the administrative act of demolishing Liao Mingyao's house by the Longnan County People's Government is illegal.

After the judgment came into effect, Liao Mingyao filed an administrative compensation lawsuit with the court in May 2014. After multiple coordination by the Anyuan County People's Court, Liao Mingyao and the Longnan County People's Government reached a settlement agreement on the losses caused by illegal administrative actions and the demolition of all their houses. Liao Mingyao withdrew the lawsuit and the administrative dispute was resolved in substance.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that it highlights the burden of proof and judicial authority of administrative organs in administrative litigation, and has a warning effect on promoting active response of administrative organs and their staff, continuously strengthening litigation awareness, evidence awareness, and responsibility awareness. The legal and judicial interpretations clearly stipulate the burden of proof for administrative organs in litigation. Failure to provide evidence within the statutory deadline is considered as the absence of evidence for the sued administrative act, which is the legal bottom line for courts to handle such cases. In this case, the defendant demolished the plaintiff's legitimate house during the process of demolishing illegal buildings, and failed to provide evidence to prove the legality of their actions to the court within the statutory time limit during the subsequent litigation process. Therefore, they can only bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit.

9、 Ye Chengsheng, Ye Chengchang, and Ye Cheng filed a lawsuit against the Renhua County People's Government for housing administrative coercion

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2009, the Renhua County People's Government (hereinafter referred to as the Renhua County Government) planned to build a non-ferrous metal circular economy industrial base in Renhua County, which required the acquisition of some land from the Xinwei Village Group of the Xinzhuang Village Committee in Zhoutian Town, Renhua County, Guangdong Province. The land occupied by the houses of Ye Chengsheng, Ye Chengchang, and Ye Chengfa (hereinafter referred to as Ye Chengsheng and others) is within the scope of the expropriated land, and belongs to the "two violation" buildings that have not been approved by the township planning and have not obtained land use certificates. From August 2009 to July 2013, the Renhua County government successively posted documents such as "Notice on Prohibiting Rush Planting and Construction", "Notice on Land Acquisition", "Pre announcement on Land Acquisition", "Letter to the Villagers", and "Notice on Ordering to Stop All Violations of Construction" on the village committee and village group of the expropriated land, informing Ye Chengsheng and the three others that the land occupied by their houses is illegal land use through investigation records and other forms. In October 2009 and June 2013, the Land and Resources Bureau of Renhua County issued two separate "notices" requesting Ye Chengfa to stop illegal land activities. At around 5:00 am on July 12, 2013, the Renhua County Government organized personnel to forcibly demolish the houses of Ye Chengsheng and three others without issuing a notice or announcement of forced demolition. Ye Chengsheng and three others subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province, requesting confirmation that the forced demolition by the Renhua County Government was illegal.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province believes that although the use of rural collective land by Ye Chengsheng and other three people to build houses without government approval is illegal construction, the Renhua County government forced the demolition of the houses built by Ye Chengsheng and other three people in the early morning of July 12, 2013. There were serious flaws in the procedure, that is, before the forced demolition was carried out, no notice of forced demolition was issued to Ye Chengsheng and the three people, and no notice of forced demolition was sent to the village committee where the forced demolition houses were located The villagers' group posted a notice to demolish it within a specified time limit, which violates the provisions of Article 34 and Article 44 of the Administrative Compulsory Law of the People's Republic of China. Moreover, the implementation of administrative compulsory execution by the Renhua County government at night does not comply with the provisions of Article 43 (1) of the Administrative Compulsory Law of the People's Republic of China, which states that "administrative organs shall not implement compulsory execution at night or on statutory holidays". Based on this, in accordance with Article 57 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment confirms that the specific administrative act of the Renhua County Government on July 12, 2013, which carried out administrative compulsory demolition of the houses of Ye Chengsheng and three others, was illegal. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in fully reflecting the important functions of administrative trial supervision, government administration in accordance with the law, and safeguarding the basic rights and interests of citizens. Even for the compulsory demolition of illegal buildings, it is necessary to strictly follow the procedural provisions of the Administrative Compulsory Law. Before demolition, the relative party should be notified to demolish them themselves, and notices should be posted locally, and it is not allowed to demolish them at night. The defendant in this case did not comply with these procedural requirements and was determined by the people's court to be illegal. The Administrative Compulsory Law has been in effect since January 1, 2012, and the judgment in this case has helped to promote the correct application of the law in administrative trials.

10、 Ye Hanxiang v. Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau and Shifeng District People's Government of Zhuzhou City in Hunan Province for Not Fulfilling the Legal Duty of Demolition of Illegal Buildings

（1） Basic facts of the case

In July 2010, Shen Fuxiang, the head of household at No. 111 Xiaodongmen, Minzhu Village, Dongmen Community, Tianxin Street, Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, demolished the old house left by his father Shen Hanru without the approval of the defendant Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau and other relevant units, and built and expanded a new house, seriously affecting the passage and lighting of the original defendant Ye Hanxiang. The plaintiff reported to the defendant Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau on July 9, 2010. The bureau conducted an investigation and inspection of the newly built and expanded houses in Shen Fuxiang in October 2010. On October 23, 2010, the bureau issued a notice of administrative penalty (No. 462) of Zhugui Penalty Notice (Shifeng) Zi (2010) to Shen Fuxiang, informing him that his building behavior violated Article 40 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China and was considered illegal construction. According to Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China, within five days from the date of receiving the notification, the demolition shall be carried out without compensation. If the demolition is not carried out within the specified period, the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City shall organize the demolition. The notice was delivered to Shen Fuxiang himself, who was unable to dismantle it. From 2010 to 2013, the plaintiff Ye Hanxiang reported and requested the mandatory demolition of Shen Fuxiang's illegal buildings to the Dongmen Community Committee of Tianxin Street in Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, the Planning Bureau of Zhuzhou City, and the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City. However, the request was not resolved in a timely manner through application forms. On March 8, 2013, the defendant, Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau, issued an administrative penalty decision against Shen Fuxiang with Zhugui Penalty Zi (Shi 2013) Zi No. 6021. It is determined that Shen Fuxiang's construction behavior violates Article 40 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 25 of the Measures for the Implementation of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China in Hunan Province, and is illegal construction. According to Article 64 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 51 of the Measures for the Implementation of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China in Hunan Province, Shen Fuxiang is limited to demolish without compensation within three days from the date of receiving the decision. If this decision is not fulfilled within the specified time limit, in accordance with Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 54 of the Implementation Measures of the Hunan Province (Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China), and the provisions of Zhuzhengfa (2008) No. 36 document, the People's Government of Shifeng District will organize and implement compulsory demolition. Due to the failure of the defendant Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau and the People's Government of Shifeng District in Zhuzhou City to fully fulfill their statutory responsibilities for demolishing illegal buildings, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit with the court on June 5, 2013.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Hetang District, Zhuzhou City believes that the defendant, the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, should actively fulfill its legal responsibilities and organize the compulsory demolition of illegal construction in accordance with the authorization of the Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau after receiving the administrative penalty notice No. 004 (2010) and the administrative penalty decision No. 0021 (2013) from the Zhuzhou City Planning Bureau in December 2010. Although the defendant, the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, coordinated the illegal construction of Shen Fuxiang in the performance of its duties, but did not actively take measures, and its demolition of illegal construction work was not in place, which is not fully fulfilling the legal responsibility of demolishing illegal buildings. According to Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 54, Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant, the People's Government of Shifeng District, Zhuzhou City, was sentenced to perform the administrative act of demolishing Shen Fuxiang's illegal construction within three months. After the verdict was pronounced, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is to use the administrative inaction lawsuit filed by neighboring owners of illegal construction as a carrier, effectively exert judicial initiative, and urge administrative agencies to effectively and fully fulfill their legal responsibilities of demolishing illegal construction and ensuring people's livelihood. In response to the large number of illegal constructions in various regions and the trend of spreading in some areas, although the Urban and Rural Planning Law stipulates that people's governments at or above the county level have the right to forcibly demolish illegal constructions that violate urban planning and township governments that violate rural planning, the actual situation is not ideal. Illegal construction that infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of neighboring rights holders has become a common phenomenon and a weak link that is difficult to remedy. The judgment in this case indicates that the court should have an attitude towards this issue: even if the administrative agency has taken certain measures to investigate and punish the illegal construction, if it is not in place, it still constitutes incomplete performance of legal responsibilities. The court has the right to request the administrative agency to further fulfill its duties. The trial efforts in this area need to be continuously strengthened.