China News Service, December 14th. According to the Supreme Law 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 adopted the scope of courts across the country. Eight typical cases involving cultivated land protection that have been concluded in recent years were collected and sorted out, and they were officially released on the 14th.
The cases ranged from the legally governing the "non-agriculturalization" and "non-grainization" of cultivated land, the main responsibility of land reclamation, the compensation method for the administrative organs to forcibly occupy the contracted land of farmers without approval procedures, the public interest litigation of the protection of cultivated land, the special protection of basic farmland, The statute of limitations for administrative penalties for illegal land occupation, the legal basis for investigating and punishing different types of illegal buildings, etc. explain 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 arable land have been declining. The protection of arable 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 adhere to 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 indiscriminate 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 for land administrative punishment
Basic case
On April 5, 2018, without the approval of the relevant administrative department, Sun built a steel greenhouse and its auxiliary facilities on the contracted land of the villagers of the same village, occupying 3.96 acres of land in the basic farmland protection zone for seedlings and flowers Planted.
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 its current status 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 violates 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 this behavior is a land illegal act.
According to Articles 76 and 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.
Referee result
The Xi’an Railway Transportation Court held in the first instance 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 the construction of houses by villagers shall be approved in accordance with the law. Except for land collectively owned by farmers by collective economic organizations, or the use of land collectively owned by farmers for the construction of public facilities and public welfare undertakings in towns (towns) and villages with legal approval.
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 greenhouse for planting seedlings 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.
Typical meaning
The Land Management Law and the "Regulations on the Protection of Basic Farmland" 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.
2. Henan Provincial Highway Engineering Bureau Group Co., Ltd. v. Xiping County Land and Resources Bureau Land Reclamation Agreement Case
Basic case
On October 1, 2013, the Zhaizhuang Neighborhood Committee of Xiping County Industrial Zone signed a land lease contract with Xiping County Longsha Aquaculture Equipment Co., Ltd. (shareholders are Jiao XX and Yang XX), and the contract stipulates that Longsha Aquaculture Equipment Co., Ltd. leases Zhaizhuang Neighborhood Committee originally had 70 acres of land (general arable land) south of the West Road, with a lease term of 30 years, used for the construction of high-efficiency ecological agricultural breeding and the construction of supporting facilities required for industrial, commercial, processing and office life.
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 in accordance with 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 bond 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.
Referee result
The People's Court of Xiping County, Henan Province rejected the claims of Henan Highway Engineering Company in the first instance.
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 production and construction units or individuals shall be responsible for the land damaged by production and construction activities in accordance with the principle of “whoever damages, reclaims” Reclamation.
Moreover, 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 in accordance with 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.
The 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.
Typical meaning
This case clarifies that after the original land-using unit has finished using the land, other units continue to use the land, and the original land-using unit shall not be exempted if it fails to fulfill the land reclamation obligations in accordance with the land reclamation agreement or the land reclamation plan or the land reclamation fails to meet the standards. The responsibility for land reclamation embodies the principle of "whoever damages, reclamation", and from the perspective of land reclamation, it embodies the strict protection of cultivated land.
3. 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
Basic case
Yang 1 contracted 10.06 acres of collective land (including two plots of 7.51 acres and 2.55 acres) of Nanyangzhuang Village Committee (hereinafter referred to as Nanyangzhuang Village Committee) of Chaoge Sub-district Office, Qi County, in the form of family contracting, and according to law Obtained the certificate of the right to contract management of rural land. 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.
Referee result
The Intermediate People’s Court of Hebi City, Henan Province held that (1) In this case, Yang 1, Yang 2, Yang 3, and Feng were the owners of land contractual management rights, and enjoyed the use of the contracted land, the proceeds, and the land contracted management in accordance with the law. The right to transfer.
Yang 4 is the land lessee, and he has 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 in the case and remove 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 stage of approval”, which violates the "Chinese People The provisions of Articles 43 to 46 of the Land Administration Law of the Republic.
At the same time, the three defendants all agreed that Chaoge Office and Nanyangzhuang Village Committee accepted the work arrangement of Qi County People’s Government and implemented compulsory actions. 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), the five plaintiffs enjoyed legally The right to obtain administrative compensation.
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 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 of one mu of land for one year, it already includes the current season and the next season. Therefore, the five plaintiffs' claims that the defendants separately request the defendants to compensate for the loss of production suspension of 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 certificate subject to administrative compulsion 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 returned to 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.
In summary, the judgment: 1. It is confirmed that the Qi County People’s Government on July 20, 2018 forced the removal of the plaintiff’s 7.51 mu of crops on the contracted land and the forced occupation of the land was illegal; 2. The Qi County People’s Government was 30 days from the effective date of this judgment. The plaintiff’s property loss shall be compensated 21028 yuan within days; 3. The 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. Dismiss the plaintiff’s other claims.
After the judgment was made, neither party filed an appeal, and the execution has now been completed.
Typical meaning
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 the needs of public interest, but 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 farmland of farmers without legal land acquisition procedures, which is an illegal act.
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, and the principle of restoring the land to a state that can be cultivated and returning it is essential for the fundamental protection of cultivated land. , Has positive reference significance.
4. The public interest litigation litigant Rong County People's Procuratorate v. Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau for failure to perform land administrative supervision duties
Basic case
In the second half of 2014, Xie Moumou, the person in charge of Rongxian Hongkang Agricultural Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongkang Company), transferred 27.738 acres of land in Groups 1, 2, and 9 of Shiduiwo Village, Xuyang Town, Rongxian 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 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 to re-cultivation of the excess area and rectify the 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, the 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 the restoration of damaged cultivated land in accordance with relevant state regulations; Those who meet the requirements shall be ordered to pay the land reclamation fee in full, and the fee shall be used exclusively for the reclamation of the damaged cultivated land; 3. Inspect and supervise the restoration and reclamation of cultivated land by Xie XX to ensure that the rectification is in place .
After receiving the procuratorial proposal, Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau initiated an investigation into Hongkang's illegal activities on the 18th of that 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 25, 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 practices in land reclamation, Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau organized a meeting with relevant departments such as agriculture and urban management. The technical personnel of the chemical exploration team of the Sichuan Geological and Mineral Bureau reconvened in November 2018 in accordance with relevant standards. To prepare a land consolidation (reclamation) plan, the Shidui Wo Villagers’ Committee of Xuyang Town and Hongkang Company jointly commissioned a qualified land consolidation (reclamation) unit to carry out reclamation work in accordance with the plan.
The Rongxian County 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, the 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 a land consolidation (reclamation) work acceptance expert group, together with the county The Urban Management Bureau, Xuyang Town Government, Shiduiwo Village Group cadres, and representatives of members conducted on-site inspection and acceptance. The conclusion is that the construction content according to the reclamation plan has been basically completed, and the slopes have been improved for irrigation and drainage ditches, built ridges, cleared rocks, The improvement of soil quality put forward suggestions on further improving the reclamation work.
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.
Referee result
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 to leave unused or barren cultivated land”. Article 2 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 if the reclamation does not meet the requirements, land reclamation fees shall be paid, special items "For land reclamation", Article 18 of the "Land Reclamation Regulations" stipulates that "If the obligor of land reclamation fails to reclaim, or if the land reclamation is not qualified after the inspection and acceptance of the reclamation, the land reclamation fee shall be paid. The competent department of resources organizes the reclamation on its 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 stop and punish them in a timely and effective manner has caused the occupied land to be left in a barren state for a long time, violated the agricultural use, caused the destruction of national land resources, and endangered the security of national defense communications.
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 of 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 the Hongkang Company’s land reclamation, and organized relevant professionals, relevant departments, and grassroots organizations on February 22, 2019 to conduct a review of the reclamation situation. On-site acceptance.
With reference to the acceptance status and the opinions of relevant experts, it was pointed out that in the land reclamation of this case, it is also necessary to improve the irrigation and drainage ditches, build soil ridges, clear rocks, and improve 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 petitioner of the public interest litigation request to order the Rongxian Natural Resources and Planning Bureau to perform the supervision and management duties of the follow-up reclamation work of the illegal land occupation by Hongkang Company in accordance with the law, and should be supported.
Accordingly, the verdict:
1. Confirming that the Rongxian County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau violated the law of Rongxian Hongkang Agricultural Co., Ltd.'s violation of 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 judgment of the first instance was made, neither party filed an appeal.
The Rong County Natural Resources and Planning Bureau urged relevant enterprises to fulfill their reclamation obligations within the time limit of the judgment, and they were qualified by experience.
The land involved in this case has been restored to agricultural cultivation, which has been well received by local officials and the masses, and a good case handling effect has been achieved.
Typical meaning
The Administrative Litigation Law revised in 2017 established an administrative public interest litigation system. The People's Procuratorate discovered that administrative agencies with supervision and management duties in areas such as the ecological environment and resource protection have illegally performed their powers or failed to act, resulting in national or social public interest. Those who are violated shall submit procuratorial suggestions to the administrative agency and 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 land illegal 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 legal supervision function 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 according to law, stopping and restoring damaged cultivated land.
In addition, during 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.
5. Yuan Moumou sued Renhuai City Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau of Guizhou Province for revocation of administrative penalty
Basic case
In 2016, the party involved in this case, Yuan Moumou, occupied basic farmland and built houses to breed black dolphin in Baiguosi Village, Baiguosi Village, Jiucang Town, Renhuai City, Guizhou Province without approval.
On December 19, 2016, the Village and Town Construction Service Center of Jiucang Town sent a "Notice of Suspension of Construction of Illegal Buildings" to Yuan XX, asking Yuan XX to stop the construction immediately, and Yuan XX refused to sign for it.
On February 8, 2017, the Wharf Branch of the Comprehensive Administrative Enforcement Bureau of Renhuai City sent a "Notice of Ordering Rectification of Illegal Buildings" to Yuan Moumou, requesting Yuan Moumou to voluntarily remove illegal buildings in the planning area before February 15, 2017 Demolition.
On October 24, 2017, the Wharf Branch of the Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of Renhuai City sent a "Notice of Investigation and Inquiry" to Yuan XX, asking Yuan XX to bring relevant materials to the Wharf Law Enforcement Branch at 12:00 on October 26, 2017 The office was investigated and asked.
On April 10, 2018, Renhuai City Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau sent Ren Zongzhi (Taiwan) Penalty Notice (2018) No. 17-003 "Advance Notice of Administrative Punishment" to Yuan Moumou, informing Yuan Moumou that he planned to demolish For the newly built houses on the illegally occupied land, the land was restored to its original state and informed that it had the right to apply for a hearing within 3 days. Yuan Moumou refused to sign for it.
On April 16, 2018, Renhuai City Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau issued Renzongzhi (Train) Penalty (2018) No. 17-003 Administrative Penalty Decision, ordering Yuan Moumou to demolish new buildings and buildings on illegally occupied land within a time limit. Restoring other facilities to the original state of the land.
On April 20, 2018, Renhuai City Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau believed that in the process of making the Renzongzhi (Soil) Penalty [2018] No. 17-003 Administrative Penalty Decision, the "Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China" was wrongly applied and penalized The decision was flawed and based on the principle that mistakes must be investigated, the decision was made to revoke the aforementioned administrative penalty decision.
On May 7, 2018, Renhuai City Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau issued a notice of administrative penalty to Yuan XX.
Require Yuan Moumou to demolish newly built houses and other facilities on the illegal occupation of basic farmland before May 20, 2018, restore the original planting conditions and impose a fine of 30 yuan per square meter for the illegal occupation of basic farmland, a total of 1,8067.2 yuan, and The right to file a hearing within three days from the date of receipt of the notice.
However, Yuan Moumou did not perform the contents of the advance notice of administrative punishment, nor did he apply for a hearing.
On May 14, 2018, Renhuai City Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau stated that Yuan Moumou violated Article 33 of the Basic Farmland Protection Regulations.
Ren Zongzhi (Tu) Penalty [2018] No. 17-004 "Administrative Penalty Decision" (hereinafter referred to as the Sued Penalty Decision) to Yuan Moumou: 1. Demolition before May 20, 2018 in illegal occupation New houses and other facilities on the basic farmland shall be restored to the original planting conditions; 2. A fine of 30 yuan per square meter for illegal occupation of the basic farmland cultivated land shall be fined 1,8067.2 yuan in total.
Yuan Moumou refused to accept the case and filed a lawsuit, requesting to revoke the punishment decision of the accused.
Referee result
The Xishui County People’s Court of Guizhou Province held that in this case, Yuan XX built a house to occupy basic farmland, destroy basic farmland planting conditions, and failed to obtain approval from relevant functional departments, and violated laws and regulations. Renhuai City Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau As a competent body of law enforcement, it has the right to investigate and deal with the illegal acts of the administrative counterpart. The administrative penalty decision made after the facts of the investigation is established has clear facts, sufficient evidence and legal procedures.
So the judgment dismissed Yuan XX's claim.
The Intermediate People's Court of Zunyi City, Guizhou Province held the second instance that the administrative agency determined that the building built by Yuan was located in the basic farmland protection area, and the facts are clear.
Yuan Moumou illegally occupied basic farmland to build buildings without the approval of the competent authority, objectively destroying the basic farmland planting conditions, and his behavior violated Article 33 of the Basic Farmland Protection Regulations.
Renhuai City Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau, as a qualified law enforcement body, has the right to investigate and deal with the illegal acts of administrative counterparts. Before punishing Yuan, the Bureau will investigate the facts of the case in accordance with legal procedures and conduct investigations on relevant persons familiar with the matter. Inquiry, go to the site for inspection, inform Yuan XX according to law that he has the right to apply for a hearing, combine Yuan’s illegal acts and circumstances, in accordance with Article 33 of the Basic Farmland Protection Regulations, and in accordance with the Office of the People’s Government of Guizhou Province Tingqianfuban issued [2000] No. 87 document concerning the standard of reclamation fees. Yuan Moumou made a decision on the punishment of the accused. The procedure was legal and the punishment was appropriate. The appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
Typical meaning
Different from ordinary agricultural land, basic farmland is a type of cultivated land under state protection. Without approval, building farming houses belonging to agricultural facilities in the basic farmland protection area is also a violation of the Regulations on the Protection of Basic Farmland. Article 33 of the Basic Farmland Protection Regulations shall be dealt with.
This case has a good warning and guidance effect on the selection of land for agricultural production facilities, and is conducive to promoting the protection of basic farmland.
In addition, the administrative agency in this case took the initiative to revoke the defective administrative penalty decision and correct the related errors, which is also worthy of recognition.
6. Shen Moumou sued Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau of Guizhou Province to revoke administrative penalty
Basic case
The party involved in this case, Mr. Shen, occupied 436.38 square meters of cultivated land in Hejia Group, Pingxiba Village, Jiuzhou Town, Huangping County, Guizhou Province without approval in September 2013 to build a house for the operation of the Meile Villa Farmhouse.
On August 5, 2019, law enforcement officers of the Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau of Guizhou Province (hereinafter referred to as Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau) inspected the site of Shen’s suspected illegal occupation of land and building houses, and found the illegal act, and immediately opened a case for investigation. The procedure collects and fixes relevant evidence. After collective discussion, Huang Tianzizhigae (2019) No. 23 "Administrative Punishment Notice" was issued on August 14, 2019, to inform Shen of the illegal facts, the basis for punishment, and what happened There are objections to the proposed administrative penalty, and he has the right to make statements, defenses and request a hearing, and order Shen XX to correct the illegal act.
On August 14, 2019, XX Shen applied to the Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau to hold a hearing. The Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau held a hearing on August 20, 2019 according to Shen XX's application. After hearing Shen XX at the hearing Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau issued Huang Zizhizhi (2019) No. 23 "Administrative Penalty Decision" on August 23, 2019, after the opinions put forward in the Central Committee were rejected, ordering Shen Moumou to return the illegally occupied Jiuzhou in Huangping County The cultivated land of Xiba Village in Zhenping is 436.38 square meters. The buildings and other facilities built on the illegally occupied land shall be demolished within a time limit, and the land shall be restored to its original state and delivered to Shen XX.
Shen Moumou refused to accept and filed a lawsuit in this case.
Shen Moumou alleged that he had managed and used the building involved in the case for 6 years, and the Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau never issued any penalty decision to him during this period. The current penalty decision has exceeded the time limit for administrative penalty prosecution.
Referee result
The Zhenyuan County People’s Court of Guizhou Province held that in accordance with Article 5 Paragraph 2 and Article 66 Paragraph 1 of the Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Amended in 2004) and Article 4 Article 4 of the Land Administration Regulations of Guizhou Province According to the spirit of the second paragraph, Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau has the statutory duty to impose administrative penalties on Shen's illegal occupation of cultivated land and building houses in its jurisdiction.
According to the spirit of Article 76 of the "Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended in 2004), Shen XX illegally occupied his contracted arable land to build houses for the operation of Meile Mountain Villa Farmhouse without approval, Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau Fulfilled legal procedures such as preliminary verification, case-filing investigation, site survey, and inquiry investigation, and informed Shen of the right to make statements, defenses, and apply for a hearing. After the hearing was held and the hearing opinion was decided not to be adopted, a decision to be sued was made And served, the facts are clear, the punishment result complies with the law, and the procedure is legal.
Regarding the issue that the building of houses has exceeded the time limit for prosecution stipulated in the Administrative Penalty Law, the court of first instance held that, in accordance with the spirit of Article 29 of the Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China, Shen’s illegal act of occupying land had not Before restoring to the original state, it shall be deemed to have a continuing state.
In this case, when the Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau investigated Shen’s illegal acts from the time the case was filed to the penalty, Shen’s illegal occupation of cultivated land was still in a state of continuing. The Huangping County Natural Resources Bureau’s administrative penalty shall be prosecuted in accordance with the Administrative Penalty Law The provisions of the second paragraph of Article 29 shall be calculated from the date of the end of the illegal act. Therefore, Shen's opinion of the litigation cannot be established and shall not be adopted.
In the end, the People's Court of Zhenyuan County, Guizhou Province rejected Shen's claims in the first instance.
After the first-instance judgment was made, the parties did not file an appeal within the statutory time limit, and the first-instance judgment is now effective.
Typical meaning
The significance of this case is to clarify that the time effect of prosecution of administrative penalties for illegal land occupation shall be calculated from the date of the end of the illegal act.
The first paragraph of Article 29 of the "Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that "If an illegal act is not discovered within two years, no administrative punishment shall be imposed. Unless otherwise provided by law." In practice, some parties mistakenly believe that administrative punishment The penalties for prosecution shall be counted from the day the act begins. If the violation is deemed to last for two years, it will exceed the prosecution period and will not be punished.
This case clarified the second paragraph of Article 29 of the "Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China", "The period specified in the preceding paragraph shall be calculated from the day when the illegal act occurs; if the illegal act is continuous or continuous, it shall be calculated from the day the act ends. "The connotation of the regulations is of positive significance for urging the perpetrators of illegal land occupation to abandon their fluke psychology, promptly stop illegal activities, and restore the land to its original condition to protect cultivated land.
7. Rugao Feng'an Textile Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Rugao Natural Resources Bureau Administrative Penalty Case
Basic case
In March 2017, Zhang Moumou, the legal representative of Rugao Fengan Textile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fengan Company), occupied the collective land in Group 7 of Yandi Village, Motou Town, to build a brick-concrete steel structure workshop for bedding processing. The plant illegally occupied 828.7 square meters of land, which was in line with the overall land use plan of Motou Town. The 828.7 square meters did not meet the overall land use plan of the town, of which 817.78 square meters occupied arable land and 10.92 square meters occupied arable land. Other agricultural land.
The former Rugao Land and Resources Bureau discovered the illegal situation of Feng'an Company during the inspection, so it went to the site for preliminary investigation and survey and issued a notice ordering the suspension of illegal land activities.
On March 6, 2018, the original Rugao City Land and Resources Bureau Supervision Squadron recommended to file a case for investigation, and the original Rugao City Land and Resources Bureau submitted the case for approval on March 12, 2018.
On April 11, 2018, the former Rugao Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources issued an administrative penalty hearing notice to Feng'an Company, informing Feng'an Company of the facts of the violation of the law, the reasons and basis for the proposed punishment, and the right to make statements and defenses and hearings.
Feng'an Company did not file a statement of defense or request a hearing within the prescribed time limit after receiving it on the same day.
On May 2, 2018, the former Rugao Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources issued an administrative penalty decision of Gao Guo Tu Zi Ping (2018) No. 06060701, which held that Feng An Company violated Article 43 of the Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China. For illegal land occupation, the 828.7 square meters of illegally occupied land shall be returned, the newly built buildings and other facilities shall be demolished on the land within a time limit, the land shall be restored to its original state, and a fine of RMB 1,7348.1 yuan shall be imposed.
Feng'an Company refused to accept it and filed a lawsuit in this case.
Feng'an Company alleged that the land it used was land within the scope of land contractual management rights and wasted land, and was not illegally occupying collective land.
Referee result
The People’s Court of Nantong Economic and Technological Development Zone in Jiangsu Province held that, first, the fact that the punishment decision of the accused is clear is that Feng’an Company’s occupation of collective land to build a factory building is an unauthorized occupation.
Even if there is a transfer of land contractual management rights in this case, the transferred land shall not change its agricultural use.
Second, the lawsuit was applied accurately to the punishment decision, and the punishment was reasonable and appropriate.
The punishment of the accused does not violate Article 76 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 42 of the Implementation Regulations of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, and the Standards for Discretion of Common Administrative Penalties for Land and Resources in Jiangsu Province Regulations.
Third, the procedure of the sued penalty decision is legal, and there is no situation of depriving Feng'an Company of the right to make a statement and defense and hearing.
Then the court ruled to dismiss Feng'an's litigation request.
The Intermediate People's Court of Nantong City, Jiangsu Province held the second instance that the fact that Feng'an Company occupied collective land to build a factory building was an illegal occupation without approval.
Although Feng'an Company submitted a land lease contract signed with Yang XX and others to prove that the land was rented from others for a fee.
However, combined with the provisions of the Land Management Law and the Rural Land Contract Law, it can be seen that illegal land use infringes the national land use classification and planning system. It is determined whether the perpetrator has illegal land use, and whether the land used by the perpetrator is transferred for compensation. It is the criterion for judging, but to see whether the land is used for approval procedures, whether the land is changed for agricultural purposes, etc.
The land occupied by Feng'an Company is agricultural land, which does not conform to the overall land use plan. The Rugao Natural Resources Bureau refunded the illegally occupied land to Feng'an Company, demolished buildings and other facilities by itself, restored the land to its original condition, and imposed fines. , The amount and penalty are appropriate.
The appeal was rejected and the original verdict was upheld.
Typical meaning
This case clarifies that the determination of illegal land occupation is not only based on whether the parties have legal land transfer procedures, but also based on factors such as whether the parties have used the land to go through the approval procedures in accordance with the law and whether to change the agricultural use of the land.
In this case, although Feng'an Company claims that it enjoys the land contracted management right of the land involved, the land occupied by it is cultivated land and other agricultural land other than cultivated land. The land contracted management right holder shall use the land in accordance with the law and regulations according to the purpose of the land. And shall not change the agricultural use of the land without authorization.
This case has positive significance for the management of "non-agriculturalization" in accordance with the law.
8. Chen Moumou v. Yangpu Economic Development Zone Management Committee Urban and Rural Construction Administrative Compulsory Case
Basic case
Chen XX is building a pig house without authorization in Kantang Village.
On October 8, 2018, the Yangpu Economic Development Zone Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Yangpu Management Committee) issued a "Notice of Demolition within a Time Limit", and determined that Chen Moumou had not obtained the approval of the Yangpu Planning and Construction Administration in In the case of construction planning permit, in Kantang Village, a 440.56 square meter structure was built without authorization, and a decision was made to demolish the structure within a time limit, and Chen Moumou was informed that he had the right to make statements and defenses, and to apply for a hearing. service.
After that, the Yangpu Management Committee successively issued the "Demand Demolition Decision within a Time Limit", a Call for Implementation of Administrative Decisions, a Compulsory Execution Decision, a Compulsory Demolition Announcement, and a Notice of Evacuation within a Time Limit and organized it on January 31, 2019. Demolish Chen's pig house.
Chen XX refused to accept the "Enforcement Decision Letter" and sued.
Referee result
The Second Intermediate People's Court of Hainan Province held that in the first instance, Chen XX did not go through the relevant procedures for building a pig house in the village and did not obtain a rural construction planning permit. The Yangpu Management Committee identified the pig house as an illegal structure and was not inappropriate; Chen When XX did not demolish the illegally constructed pig house, the Yangpu Management Committee made the No. 251 enforcement decision in accordance with Article 37 of the "Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China". The judgment dismissed Chen's claims.
The Hainan Higher People’s Court held in the second instance that in accordance with Article 83 of the Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China and Article 65 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People’s Republic of China, compulsory occupation of buildings or facilities on land The demolition shall be executed by the administrative agency applying to the people’s court, and the building or facility built in violation of the plan in the township or village planning area shall be investigated and punished by the administrative agency itself.
In this case, the land used for the breeding facilities involved is agricultural land, and Chen’s failure to fulfill the land use approval procedures to use the land for the breeding facilities involved is illegal land occupation. Therefore, the demolition of the breeding facilities involved in the case should be carried out in accordance with the "Chinese People The provisions of Article 83 of the Land Administration Law of the Republic of China shall be enforced by the People’s Court by the Yangpu Management Committee, and the provisions of Article 65 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People’s Republic of China cannot be applied by the Yangpu Management Committee. Decided to force removal.
Moreover, the Yangpu Management Committee did not provide evidence to prove that the land used for the breeding facilities in the case belonged to the construction land within the planning area of the township or village, that is, there is no situation that can be investigated and handled by the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China.
To sum up, the Yangpu Management Committee applied Article 65 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People’s Republic of China to make the enforcement decision No. 251. The applicable law and the results of the processing were all wrong and should be revoked according to law. However, since the breeding facilities involved have been Being forced to dismantle, the decision has essentially no revocable content, so it should be confirmed as illegal according to law.
Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance was revoked based on this judgment, confirming that the administrative act of Yangpu Management Committee in making the "Enforcement Decision" was illegal.
Typical meaning
According to relevant laws and regulations, buildings in the planning area of townships and villages that violate the Urban and Rural Planning Law may be forcibly demolished by the people’s government of the township or town in accordance with the law. If buildings outside the planning area violate the provisions of the Land Administration Law, the administrative agency shall apply to the people’s court. Forced removal.
Therefore, in the process of investigating and punishing illegal buildings, administrative agencies need to investigate the nature of illegal buildings, and cannot simply apply the Urban and Rural Planning Law in general.
In this case, through the identification of the nature of illegal buildings, the legal basis for the investigation and punishment of different types of illegal buildings should be clarified, which provides a good reference for the administrative organs to manage according to law.