According to the website of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Natural Resources recently jointly released typical cases of administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision in the field of land law enforcement investigation and punishment.
A total of 5 typical cases were released this time, including a sub-bureau of a municipal natural resources and planning bureau in Henan Province applying to enforce the return of land by a motor vehicle inspection company and demolition of illegal buildings, the application of a district natural resources bureau of a city in Shandong Province to enforce the return of land by a steel products company and confiscation of illegal buildings, and the application of a county natural resources bureau in Fujian Province to enforce Wu's return of land, demolition of illegal buildings, and restoration of land to its original state The Natural Resources Bureau of a county in Jilin Province applied for enforcement of the administrative punishment decision to forcibly demolish buildings on land illegally occupied by Wang and restore the land to its original state, and the Natural Resources and Planning Bureau of a county in Sichuan Province applied for compulsory enforcement of Liu's return of land, demolition of buildings, restoration of land to its original state and fines.
In 2021, the Supreme People's Procuratorate deployed and carried out a special activity on "administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision in the field of land law enforcement investigation and punishment" in procuratorial organs across the country to promote the solution of the difficult problem of applying for enforcement of land administrative punishment decisions. In March 2022, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Natural Resources jointly issued the Opinions on Establishing a Working Mechanism for Linking Administrative Procuratorial and Natural Resources Administrative Law Enforcement, strengthening communication and connection between administrative procuratorate and land law enforcement, and improving mechanisms for information sharing, case reporting, and case transfer in the field of land law enforcement. From 3, procuratorial organs across the country will regularly carry out administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision in the field of land law enforcement investigation. From 2022 to 2021, procuratorial organs across the country handled nearly 2022,3 non-litigation enforcement supervision cases in the field of land law enforcement investigation and punishment, involving a land area of more than 30,<> mu.
Typical cases of administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision in the field of land law enforcement investigation
Case one
A branch of the Natural Resources and Planning Bureau of a city in Henan Province applied to enforce the administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision case of a motor vehicle inspection company returning land and demolishing illegal buildings
【Keywords】
Linkage and cooperation from top to bottom, follow-up and supervision of cultivated land protection
【Basic facts of the case】
Since July 2014, a motor vehicle testing company in a city in Henan Province has occupied 7.44 mu of permanent basic farmland and 03.9 mu of other land in a village to build a motor vehicle testing station without approval. In February 9075, a branch of the former municipal land and resources bureau (known as a branch of the municipal natural resources and planning bureau after the institutional reform, hereinafter referred to as the district bureau) found clues during its daily inspection, issued the company with a "Notice of Order to Stop Illegal Acts" and "Notice of Order to Correct Illegal Acts", and filed a case for investigation on its illegal occupation of land. On March 2016 of the same year, the district bureau made an administrative penalty decision against the company in the name of the former municipal land and resources bureau (the district was then a non-independent administrative division, managed by a municipal government, and the municipal land and resources bureau entrusted the branch bureau to exercise administrative law enforcement power): 2. A fine of 3 yuan per square meter, a fine of 23,1 yuan, for illegally occupied permanent basic farmland, and a fine of 30 yuan per square meter, a fine of 880680,10 yuan, for other land illegally occupied. Total fine: 66050,946730 yuan. 2. Demolition of newly built buildings, structures and other facilities on illegally occupied land within 2018 days. At the same time, the case was suspected of the crime of illegally occupying agricultural land, and after the district bureau applied to the municipal cultivated land destruction appraisal committee to give an appraisal opinion on the cultivated land damage, it was transferred to the judicial organ for investigation of criminal responsibility in accordance with the law. On August 8, 9, Ping, the person in charge of the company involved in the case, was sentenced by the court to one year in prison and fined 5,<> yuan.
The company neither applied for administrative reconsideration or filed an administrative lawsuit within the statutory time limit, nor did it consciously perform the administrative penalty decision. On 2017 January 1, the District Bureau applied to the District Court for compulsory enforcement after being alerted. The district court held that the administrative punishment was made in the name of the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau and did not fall under its jurisdiction, and was inadmissible on this ground.
The above-mentioned administrative punishment decisions for land violations have not been implemented in place, the illegal buildings have not been demolished, and the illegal status persists.
【Supervision and collaboration】
In March 2021, the district procuratorate discovered clues in this case in carrying out special activities on administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision in the field of land law enforcement investigation and punishment of procuratorial organs nationwide, and then initiated supervision procedures ex officio.
Investigation and verification, joint supervision. The illegal occupation of the case was large, the time span was long, the background was complex, and the illegal occupation lasted for 7 years. The Supreme People's Procuratorate Administrative Procuratorate listed the case as a special activity to supervise and handle the case, requiring the administrative procuratorial departments of provincial, municipal, and district procuratorates to persist in attaching equal importance to supervision and support, form a joint law enforcement and judicial force with natural resources departments at all levels, and urge relevant units to repair damaged cultivated land as soon as possible. In the course of handling cases, provincial, municipal, and district procuratorates repeatedly sent personnel to the scene to investigate and verify, access law enforcement files, and hold forums with the competent departments for natural resources on many occasions. On the basis of in-depth investigation and verification, the procuratorate held that the district bureau did not have the qualifications to be the subject of administrative punishment when it made the "Administrative Punishment Decision" and made the decision in the name of the competent department at a higher level, and the district court refused to accept it on the grounds that it did not belong to its jurisdiction, and that the district was a pilot economic zone, and there were special historical background factors such as the unsmooth management system, unclear legal status, and unclear powers and responsibilities at that time. In March 2021, nine units, including the Henan Provincial Department of Natural Resources, the Henan Provincial Higher People's Court, and the Henan Provincial People's Procuratorate, jointly issued the Implementation Opinions on Improving the Administrative Law Enforcement System and Mechanism for Natural Resources and Promoting Long-term Enforcement and Supervision (for Trial Implementation), which stipulates that for cases that exceed the time limit for applying for enforcement due to force majeure or other historical reasons, the relevant departments shall adopt a "case-by-case" approach to handle them in accordance with the law. Although the administrative punishment decision in this case was made five years ago, the illegal buildings involved in the case have not been demolished, and the illegal state of land has continued, which must be rectified and implemented. As a result, the district procuratorate issued procuratorial recommendations to the district bureau and the district court respectively, urging each to perform its duties and fulfill its duties. In order to speed up the handling of the case, in June 3, the Supreme People's Procuratorate's Administrative Procuratorate and the Enforcement Bureau of the Ministry of Natural Resources jointly supervised the case.
Follow up monitoring and extend results. The administrative procuratorate of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the administrative procuratorial departments of provincial- and municipal procuratorates aim to demolish illegal buildings and restore permanent basic farmland as soon as possible, continue to guide and support district procuratorates in carrying out supervision, and actively coordinate with the competent departments of natural resources, local governments, and other relevant parties to hold forums to study and formulate solutions. In response to the situation where the administrative counterpart mistakenly believed that he had been investigated for criminal responsibility and had assumed relevant responsibilities, so he no longer performed the responsibility for demolition, the district procuratorate and the district bureau repeatedly explained the law and reasoned to him, and conducted warning education in combination with similar cases. On December 2021, 12, the Supreme People's Procuratorate's Administrative Procuratorate and the Enforcement Bureau of the Ministry of Natural Resources went to the city to supervise the case again. Through the joint efforts of multi-level local governments and departments, administrative counterparts have realized the seriousness of their illegal acts and the harm of illegal occupation. On December 3, 2021, the administrative counterpart began to demolish the buildings and structures on the illegally occupied land on its own. At present, the newly built buildings and ground hardening of the illegally occupied land in this case have all been demolished in place, reclaimed in place, and restored to farming.
【Typical significance】
Food security is an important foundation of national security, and arable land is the lifeblood of food production. The protection of cultivated land is the "great power of the country" and is related to national food security. When handling administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision cases in the field of land law enforcement investigation and handling, procuratorial organs should conscientiously implement the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping's important instructions on adhering to the strictest farmland protection system, resolutely curbing land violations, and firmly holding the red line of cultivated land protection, strengthen communication and coordination with the competent departments of natural resources, form a joint force, give full play to the role of the administrative law enforcement and administrative procuratorial linkage mechanism and the case connection platform, persevere, continue to pay attention, follow up and supervise, and solve the problem of illegally occupied land demolition and recultivation. Help guard the red line of cultivated land protection. In this case, in view of the long-standing problems of unclear jurisdiction, poor acceptance, and ineffective enforcement of administrative non-litigation enforcement cases in the field of land law enforcement investigation and punishment formed by special historical reasons, the procuratorial organs and the competent departments of natural resources prompted the administrative counterparty to demolish the buildings built on the illegal occupation of land on their own in accordance with relevant provisions based on the fact that the illegal acts persisted, completely solved the problem of illegal occupation of cultivated land for up to seven years, and demonstrated the responsibility of administrative procuratorial responsibility in ensuring national food security and safeguarding national interests and social public interests.
Case 2
The Natural Resources Bureau of a certain district of a city in Shandong Province applied to enforce the return of land by a steel products company and the confiscation of illegal buildings
【Keywords】
Administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision: illegal occupation of land, confiscation of illegal buildings, procuratorial suggestions, litigation source governance
【Basic facts of the case】
In July 2009, a steel products company occupied 7.1 mu of collective cultivated land in a village without approval to build a factory for production and operation. On April 1, 2018, a district land and resources bureau (known as a district natural resources bureau after institutional reform, hereinafter referred to as the district natural resources bureau) of a certain city made an administrative penalty decision against the company: 4. ordered to return the illegally occupied land; 13. confiscated the newly built buildings and other facilities on the illegally occupied land; 1. imposed a fine of 2,3 yuan at 22 yuan per square meter. On May 16302, 2018, a steel products limited company paid a fine of 5,28 yuan, but did not take the initiative to perform the first and second punishments in the administrative penalty decision, nor applied for administrative reconsideration or filed an administrative lawsuit. On December 16302, 1, the District Natural Resources Bureau applied to the District Court for compulsory enforcement after being alerted. On December 2, 2018, the District Court ruled that: 12. Granting the execution of items 4 and 2018 of the administrative penalty decision; 12. The debtor, a steel products limited company, must perform its obligations within 6 days from the date of service of the ruling; 1. The execution of this case shall be organized and implemented by a certain district and a street office. After receiving the district court's ruling, a sub-district office did not take practical measures to implement it.
【Supervision and collaboration】
In March 2021, in carrying out the special activity of supervising the enforcement of administrative non-litigation in the field of land law enforcement investigation and punishment of procuratorial organs across the country, the district procuratorate discovered clues in this case by holding a briefing meeting with the district natural resources bureau, and then initiated the supervision procedure ex officio.
Investigation and verification. After investigation and verification with the district court, the district natural resources bureau, a sub-district office, a steel products limited company and other units, the district procuratorate found that the land involved in the case was the collective land of a village under the jurisdiction of a sub-district office, the nature of the land was general cultivated land, in line with the overall land use plan of a district from 2006 to 2020, and the executor, a steel products company, had not approved the construction of a factory building for production and operation, and as of the time the district procuratorate investigated the case, the relevant procedures had not been completed. The penalty decision made by the District Natural Resources Bureau and the ruling granting enforcement made by the District Court are based on sufficient basis and the procedure is lawful. After receiving a decision from the district court granting enforcement, a neighborhood office held that the law did not specify the forfeiture procedure in such cases, and therefore did not confiscate illegal buildings and other facilities.
Prosecutorial recommendations. On March 2021, 3, the district procuratorate issued a procuratorial recommendation to a neighborhood office, suggesting that the unit organize the implementation of the enforcement obligations determined in the administrative ruling of the district court in accordance with the law. On April 19 of the same year, a sub-district office replied to the procuratorate that it had issued a "Notice of Return of Illegal Occupation within a Time Limit" on March 4, 2, ordering the return of the illegally occupied collective land within 2021 days; However, there is currently no specific method for confiscation of newly built buildings and other facilities on the ground under item 3, and we are actively seeking ways to deal with them legally.
协作联动。区检察院收到回复后，组织区自然资源局、区司法局、区财政局、某街道办事处多次召开联席会议，沟通研判，逐步形成共识。1.某街道办事处负有法定执行义务。《中华人民共和国土地管理法》第七十七条明确规定：“对违反土地利用总体规划擅自将农用地改为建设用地的，限期拆除在非法占用的土地上新建的建筑物和其他设施，恢复土地原状，对符合土地利用总体规划的，没收在非法占用的土地上新建的建筑物和其他设施，可以并处罚款。”区法院依法作出裁定，符合法律规定。《中华人民共和国土地管理法》《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》等法律法规对没收程序的规定虽然具有概述性，但不能免除某街道办事处的执行义务。2.上级行政主管部门就没收执行程序出台的指导意见具有一定的约束力。2016年11月9日，某市自然资源和规划局印发《某市行政处罚违法用地上建筑物和其他设施没收处置指导意见》(以下简称《指导意见》)，对全市没收违法建筑物和其他设施的政策依据、实施主体、没收步骤、处置意见等作了规范指引。《指导意见》本质上属于内部行政规程，具有示范、引导、规范的性质，对下级行政机关具有约束力。3.《指导意见》亦没有明确各没收步骤的主管单位，某街道办事处要履行本案的执行义务，实际执行中需要多部门给予配合。行政没收涉及土地执法、国有资产管理等多项行政管理职能，《指导意见》虽然对没收的基本步骤作了规定，但没有明确各步骤的主管单位，依靠某街道办事处协调难以推动问题解决。
诉源治理。区检察院向区政府主管部门制发检察建议，建议进一步完善没收违法占用土地建设地上建筑物和其他设施的程序，明确各执行环节的责任主体。区政府主管部门收到检察建议后，向区政府进行专题汇报。区政府召开办公会议专题研究，邀请区检察院派员列席发表意见，形成了专题会议纪要，对违法建筑物及其他设施的没收程序进行细化，明确了下达没收通知、送达被执行人、办理移交手续、登记造册、纳入国有资产管理等执行步骤和责任单位。某街道办事处依据该会议纪要，在相关部门配合下，组织人员到某钢制品有限公司开展执行。执行人员向企业负责人告知了执行依据、执行程序、法律后果，企业负责人表示认可和接受。在勘察丈量违法建筑物后，执行人员对违法建筑物出入口进行封焊，张贴封条，资产登记到某街道办事处名下，纳入国有资产管理范围。此案办结后，区检察院就该案办理情况进一步向市检察院汇报，市检察院与市法院、市司法局、市自然资源和规划局等部门开展座谈调研，推动在全市进一步完善违法用地上建筑物没收处置工作机制。
【典型意义】
违法用地上建筑物及其他设施没收执行难，是土地执法中长期存在的“老大难”问题。《中华人民共和国土地管理法》《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》《中华人民共和国行政强制法》等法律和相关法规均未明确规定具体的没收执行程序，行政机关担心执行中出现程序违法，陷入“法定职责必须为”与“法无授权不可为”的两难境地，影响土地资源保护、开发和利用，损害执法、司法的公信力和权威性。本案中，检察机关坚持能动履职理念，与法院、相关行政机关加强履职互动，聚焦案件反映出的没收执行难问题，同向发力，寻求破解难题的途径，通过制发社会治理检察建议，推动区政府出台适用于当地的违法用地上建筑物没收处置程序，为辖区内同类案件的依法执行提供有力保障。
案例三
福建省某县自然资源局申请强制执行吴某退还土地、拆除违法建筑物、恢复土地原状行政非诉执行监督案
【关键词】
行政非诉执行监督违法占用土地主动履行
【基本案情】
2018年7月，福建省某县某镇某村村民吴某未经批准，擅自占用该村1.36亩(其中耕地0.37亩)土地建设竹制品燃料加工厂，建设了一座一层钢架铁皮厂房和硬化水泥坪。
2018年12月29日，某镇自然资源所工作人员在巡查中发现吴某违法占地行为后，遂向吴某了解情况，对其宣传《中华人民共和国土地管理法》等法律、法规，并依法送达《责令停止土地违法行为通知书》，要求吴某立即停止违法行为、自行拆除违法建筑、恢复土地原貌，吴某未按要求自行拆除违法建筑。某县自然资源局经立案调查于2019年5月7日依法向吴某送达行政处罚决定，要求其退还违法占用的土地，限期拆除在违法占用土地上的建筑物，恢复土地原貌，处罚款19016.76元。吴某在法定期限内未提出复议、未提起诉讼，也未履行行政处罚决定。10月15日该局依法送达《履行行政决定催告书》。催告后，吴某于11月11日缴纳了罚款19016.76元，但未履行“退还违法占用的土地，限期拆除在违法占用土地上的建筑物，恢复土地原貌”的处罚决定。2020年1月3日，某县自然资源局依法向某县法院申请强制执行行政处罚决定书中未履行的行政处罚事项。3月4日，某县法院作出行政裁定，准予强制执行，由不动产所在地某镇政府组织实施。镇政府未组织实施。
【监督和协作配合情况】
2021年4月，为落实自然资源部办公厅、最高人民检察院办公厅联合印发《自然资源主管部门与检察机关在土地执法查处领域加强协作配合的试点方案》的有关精神，福建省检察院与省自然资源厅建立自然资源行政执法与行政检察衔接机制，对全省范围内未执行土地非诉案件进行排查，对其中重大疑难复杂的五个案件开展联合挂牌督办。本案系该批督办案件之一。
调查核实。检察机关依托与县自然资源局、县法院建立的协作配合机制，充分发挥调查核实在检察机关法律监督中的作用，调阅行政处罚、非诉执行卷宗，查看现场，询问本案当事人吴某及某村委会工作人员、部分村民，走访镇政府，了解到吴某违法占地建设竹制品加工厂投入较大成本，经济条件困难，其已经缴纳罚款，仍需以该加工厂作为收入来源，法院裁定准予强制执行后，吴某对某镇政府组织实施拆除加工厂有抗拒心理，导致镇政府未组织实施。
监督结果。吴某违法占地建设厂房不符合某县土地利用总体规划，其对某县自然资源局作出的行政处罚并非完全不认可，且已缴清罚款，但因其个人对法律法规认识不到位，抵触情绪较大。为此，检察机关在向某镇政府发出检察建议督促履职的同时，更加注重化解双方矛盾，多次派员前往某县自然资源局、某镇政府沟通协调，组织县自然资源局、镇政府、吴某、村民代表等各方开展座谈交流，了解镇政府在土地执法非诉强制执行过程中存在的困难和问题，同时听取当事人吴某的诉求、村民代表的意见建议，检察人员和行政执法人员进行面对面的释法说理，促使吴某消除抵触情绪。吴某根据某镇政府的安排自行拆除了违法占地上的建筑物，铲除了硬化水泥坪，恢复了土地原状。
【典型意义】
检察机关办理行政非诉执行监督案件，经审查认为行政决定案件事实清楚、适用法律正确、具有执行效力的，可以与行政机关立足各自职能做好释法说理，督促被处罚人自动履行行政决定确定的义务，支持行政机关依法行政。本案中，上级检察机关与自然资源主管部门针对土地执法非诉执行难案件，依托协作机制，通过联合挂牌督办的方式，指导案件办理；基层检察院与自然资源主管部门落实协作配合机制，开展座谈交流，充分听取行政相对人诉求，促使吴某自动履行义务，实现了法律效果和社会效果的统一。
案例四
吉林省某县自然资源局申请执行强制拆除王某违法占用土地上的建筑物、恢复土地原状行政处罚决定监督案
【关键词】
行政非诉执行监督黑土地保护违法占用土地检察建议
【基本案情】
In April 2017, Wang Mou, a villager in a town in a county in Jilin Province, occupied 4.8 mu of general cultivated land without approval for the construction of a hotel and car wash. In the same month, law enforcement personnel from the former county land and resources bureau (known as the county natural resources bureau after the institutional reform, hereinafter collectively referred to as the county natural resources bureau) found that Wang had violated the law, and immediately stopped it verbally, and then issued a "notice ordering the cessation of illegal conduct". On July 02, 2017, the county natural resources bureau issued an administrative penalty decision: ordering the return of the illegally occupied land, demolishing the newly built buildings and other facilities on the illegally occupied land within 7 days, and restoring the land to its original state; A fine of $14,26748.75 was imposed. After receiving the penalty decision, Wang paid the fine, but did not demolish the illegal building, restore the original state of the land, and did not apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit within the statutory time limit. After the county natural resources bureau notices in accordance with the law, it applies to the county court for compulsory enforcement, and the county court rules to grant enforcement, clarifying the content of the punishment decision organized by the county government to return the land, demolish illegal buildings, and restore the land to its original state. During the unified demolition of similar illegal buildings in a town by the county government, the county natural resources bureau assisted in urging Wang to demolish them himself. In 2018, Wang demolished the illegal building on his own, but the construction waste was not cleaned up in time after the demolition and was not restored to cultivated land.
【Supervision and collaboration】
In August 2020, a county procuratorate discovered clues in the case during a special operation to protect black soil, and then initiated supervision procedures ex officio.
Investigation and verification. Through on-site inspections of the site, the county procuratorate found that the buildings on the illegally occupied land had been demolished, but the land was covered with sand and construction waste, and a number of scrapped vehicles were parked, and the original state of the land was not restored and the cultivation conditions could not be met. After reviewing the law enforcement files of the county court and the county natural resources bureau and questioning relevant personnel, we learned that the number of similar cases of illegal land occupation could not meet the conditions for resuming farming, and the black soil was not effectively protected.
Oversight opinions. According to the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China, the competent department of natural resources is uniformly responsible for the management and supervision of land, and has statutory responsibility for the protection of cultivated land. After communicating with the county government and the Natural Resources Bureau, in order to restore the original state of the black soil as soon as possible and meet the conditions for resuming farming, the county procuratorate formulated and issued an inspection recommendation to the county natural resources bureau, suggesting that the land supervision and management duties be performed in a timely manner, and promote the restoration of cultivation conditions for the land involved in the case as soon as possible.
Monitor the results. After receiving the inspection recommendations, the county natural resources bureau actively took action and immediately contacted Wang, the local government and relevant departments to restore the black soil to its original state and restore it to cultivation and planting.
Extend your research. In response to the problem that illegal land occupation was not enforced in place and cultivation conditions were not restored, the county procuratorate and the county natural resources bureau conducted a case-by-case investigation of more than 2017 administrative punishment decisions made by the county natural resources bureau since 160, focusing on whether cultivation conditions were restored and fines were paid. Procurators and law enforcement personnel from the county natural resources bureau went to the site of the crime to conduct on-site inspections, visits, and on-site investigations, and found that although the existing illegal buildings were demolished, simple houses were rebuilt on the original site, and some of them were not completely demolished, did not restore the original state of the black soil, and could not meet the conditions for cultivation. After the investigation, it was unanimously agreed that after the demolition of buildings in the case of illegal land occupation, there was a problem that the "last kilometer" of black soil restoration was not in place.
Special rectification. In order to solve the "last mile" problem of land restoration, the county procuratorate organized and convened a joint meeting on the protection of black soil attended by eight units, including the county natural resources bureau, the public security bureau, the forestry bureau, the water conservancy bureau, the taxation bureau, the environmental protection bureau, the agriculture and rural bureau, and the rural economic management station, and jointly signed the "Opinions on Establishing a Coordination Mechanism for Carrying out Black Soil Protection Work", focusing on black soil protection, reaching a consensus on the division of labor, information sharing, linkage mechanism and responsibility implementation of each unit. A working system of "natural resources departments taking the lead, and relevant departments cooperating and cooperating" has been established for the restoration of black soil after implementation, clarifying the responsibility for protection and forming a joint force for black soil protection.
Since the establishment of the work coordination mechanism, the county procuratorate has successively formulated and issued 27 procuratorial suggestions, and the joint county natural resources bureau has conducted case return visits, adopted on-site investigations, questionnaire surveys and other methods to ensure the effect of recultivation, restored a total of 20.23 mu of black land, urged the collection of a fine of 34814,65.55749 yuan, prompted a fine of 7,1540.<> yuan to enter the enforcement procedure, and demolished <>,<> square meters of illegal buildings.
【Typical significance】
Black soil is a precious soil resource. During his inspection tour in Jilin, General Secretary Xi Jinping stressed that "effective measures should be taken to effectively protect and use the black soil, the 'giant panda in cultivated land', so that it will always benefit the people." "In recent years, there have been many illegal acts such as illegally occupying black soil for non-agricultural construction. As a legal means of punishing violations of the law and protecting cultivated land, administrative punishment needs to be achieved by means of compulsory enforcement when the punished person does not actively perform his obligations. After the court makes a ruling granting compulsory enforcement on the basis of the application of the administrative organ, it shall promptly demolish the illegal buildings and restore the cultivated land planting conditions. This is also a difficult problem in the administrative enforcement and enforcement of natural resources. Based on their respective functions, procuratorial organs and natural resources departments promote systematic governance and litigation source governance in combination with handling individual cases, promote the solution of problems related to cultivated land protection in the region, work together to solve the "last mile" problem of cultivated land restoration, strictly abide by the red line of cultivated land, and implement the responsibility of cultivated land protection.
Case Five
The Natural Resources and Planning Bureau of a county in Sichuan Province applied to enforce Liu's return of land, demolition of buildings, restoration of land to its original state, and fines for administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision
【Keywords】
Administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision, permanent basic farmland protection, rulings separation of procuratorial recommendations
【Basic facts of the case】
In July 2018, Liu, a villager in a town in a county in Sichuan Province, occupied 7.1 mu of permanent basic farmland in the village without approval to build a furniture factory, and built a one-story brick wall and color steel roof building. In April 07, law enforcement officers from a county natural resources and planning bureau (hereinafter referred to as the county self-regulation bureau) inspected and found that Liu had violated the law. On May 2019 of the same year, the case was filed for investigation, and on July 4, an administrative punishment decision was made against Liu: 5. ordered to demolish the above-ground buildings within 6 days, treat the permanent basic farmland and restore the original planting conditions, and return the land to the village collective; 7. Also impose a fine of 5,1.2 yuan. Liu failed to perform the penalty decision within the prescribed time limit, nor did he apply for an administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit, and he still failed to perform after being alerted. On January 10653, 75, the county self-regulation bureau applied to a county people's court (hereinafter referred to as the county court) for compulsory enforcement. On January 2020, 1, the county court issued a ruling granting enforcement to the county self-regulation bureau for enforcement. After the ruling, Liu paid the fine on November 13, 2020, but never demolished the illegal building.
【Supervision and collaboration】
Investigation and verification. In carrying out the special activities of administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision in the field of land law enforcement investigation and punishment of procuratorial organs nationwide, the county self-regulation bureau took the initiative to transfer the case to a county people's procuratorate, explain the relevant situation, and discuss solutions. Through on-site investigations, the county procuratorate inquires about the facts of the case from the county court and the county self-regulation bureau, and obtains the files, etc., to find out that the administrative punishment decision made by the county self-regulation bureau and applies to the court for compulsory enforcement complies with the law. The county court ruled that the county self-regulation bureau applied for enforcement by the county self-regulation bureau, but because the county self-regulation bureau did not have the enforcement power and lacked the necessary means to organize implementation, the administrative penalty decision could not be actually enforced.
Oversight opinions. The county procuratorate's review held that according to the provisions of the Administrative Compulsion Law of the People's Republic of China and the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, the county self-regulation bureau has no administrative enforcement power, and in the absence of local normative documents separating adjudication and enforcement, the county court did not fully consider the practical difficulties such as the county self-regulation bureau as an institution without administrative enforcement power and the lack of enforcement means when making its ruling, resulting in the punishment decision in this case not actually enforced. On June 2021, 6, the county prosecutor's office issued a procuratorial recommendation to the county court, recommending that the improper ruling be corrected and ensure that the enforcement of the case is in place.
Monitor the results. After receiving the procuratorial recommendation, the county court re-examined the case, and after communication and consultation with the county government, the county procuratorate, and the county self-regulation bureau, found that the county self-regulation bureau did have practical difficulties in implementing the means and compulsory measures, and re-ruled that the administrative punishment decision should be submitted to the county government to organize and implement, and the county self-regulation bureau would provide assistance. In collaboration with the court, the Self-Regulation Bureau and the local government, all illegal buildings were demolished on 2021 July 7. At present, the land has been restored to cultivation conditions and returned to the village collective.
Long-term governance. In order to systematically address practical difficulties such as difficulties in the enforcement of rural land law enforcement and the mismatch between enforcement measures and the enforcement capacity of the main body, the county procuratorate took the handling of individual cases as an opportunity to establish a government-inspection linkage mechanism with the county government, and promoted the holding of a joint meeting attended by the county government, the county court and the relevant administrative departments, forming meeting minutes, reaching a consensus. Supervision by the procuratorate. The county procuratorate also formulates coordination and cooperation measures for administrative non-litigation enforcement work with the county self-regulation bureau and other administrative departments, promoting the local government to integrate the resource advantages of various administrative functional departments and forming a long-term mechanism for lawful enforcement. Since the establishment of the coordination mechanism, 6 local land-related administrative non-litigation enforcement cases have been implemented in place, and 6.88 mu have been replanted.
【Typical significance】
Permanent basic farmland is cultivated land that shall not be occupied or changed without authorization and shall be subject to special protection in accordance with the national territorial spatial planning to ensure national food security. The state implements a permanent basic farmland protection system and implements special protection for permanent basic farmland, which is a powerful guarantee for ensuring national food security and accelerating the modernization of agriculture and rural areas. Once permanent basic farmland has been demarcated, no unit or individual may occupy or change its use without authorization, and it is strictly forbidden to occupy land without approval or in violation of laws and regulations. In reality, the phenomenon of encroaching on cultivated land, such as changing land use without authorization, illegally occupying permanent basic farmland to build buildings, etc., is typical and common in rural areas, and the actual implementation rate of administrative punishment is low. In the process of people's courts exploring and carrying out the "separation of adjudication and enforcement", some cases of applying for enforcement of land-related administrative penalties are ruled on by natural resources departments that do not have the capacity to enforce them, and it is difficult for natural resources departments to actually implement them due to practical difficulties such as lack of enforcement measures authorized by law. Procuratorial organs and local governments innovate ideas, establish a linkage mechanism between government and procuratorate, the competent departments for natural resources transfer administrative punishment ledgers and relevant case leads to the procuratorial organs, and the procuratorial organs initiate supervision procedures in accordance with law, implement whole-process supervision of the application, acceptance, review, ruling, and enforcement of administrative non-litigation enforcement cases, promote the implementation of administrative punishments in place, and protect permanent basic farmland from infringement. At the same time, on the premise of insisting that permanent basic farmland is not illegally occupied, a platform for communication and consultation is established, fully considering the enforcement capabilities of all parties, and finally forming a model in which the enforcement of such administrative punishments is organized and implemented by the people's government and assisted by functional departments, and the procuratorial power, judicial power, and administrative power work in the same direction to solve the difficult problem of "separation of adjudication and enforcement", and achieve the effect of handling a case and solving a type of problem.