Sanming, Fujian: Will the demolition of the plant as illegal construction and demolition?Court: No basis!The forced demolition of illegal
It is too common to identify houses and other buildings as illegal construction in demolition, which is often called “demolition for violation”.The case we share today not only removed the “illegal construction” cap, but also confirmed that the forced demolition was illegal, creating good conditions for the subsequent application for state compensation.Let’s learn.Ms. Lu invested and ran a parts processing factory in the local park, and her business was ok.Like Ms. Lu, most of the people in the park came here to run a parts processing business through policy promotion.During the demolition of the first phase of the park in 2017, factories like Ms. Lu were given compensation for demolition and a certain amount of relocation expenses.However, when Ms. Lu’s workshop was demolished in the second phase of the park in 2019, it was only subsidized for demolition, which was quite different from the compensation standard of the first phase.Therefore, Ms. Lu did not agree with the demolition.But it wasn’t long before the plant was forcibly demolished.Ms. Lu decided to initiate legal procedures to protect her rights.Ii. In the process of reconsideration, Ms. Lu immediately applied for administrative reconsideration of the demolition documents. In the process of reconsideration, Ms. Lu learned from the evidence submitted by the respondent that the Urban Management Bureau had made a decision to demolish the house within a time limit and ordered Ms. Lu to demolish the house within 3 days.But the deadline was never delivered to Ms. Lu, who never saw it.After consulting with lawyers, the court decided to file a lawsuit against both the deadline decision and the forced demolition.Ms. Lu immediately filed two administrative lawsuits to the court. One was to request the cancellation of the decision of the demolition within a specified time limit and the other was to request the confirmation of the illegal act of forced demolition. The court tried the two cases together.Within a time limit of the trial court that the defendant to the urban management bureau dismantling decision not to give the plaintiff, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff knows the contents of the decision, serious illegal procedure, at the same time, the time limit for removal decisions in the neo-treasure hill of facts, the defendant of the facts of urban management bureau didn’t submit evidence to prove it, as there is no evidence.Therefore, the decision on the removal within a time limit is not clear and the procedure is illegal, and shall be revoked.About forced demolition behavior, the defendant the legitimacy of the urban management bureau has not submit evidence to prove that its demolition behavior, and in the process of demolition did not comply with the provisions of the act of administrative enforcement in our country, did not protect the rights of the plaintiff’s statement argued, dismantled before also fails to notify the plaintiff or an announcement, so, the urban management bureau to implement compulsory demolition behavior should be illegal to confirm.In the end, the court issued two administrative judgments, which cancelled the decision of demolition within a specified time limit and confirmed that forced demolition was illegal. The defendant should bear the costs of accepting the case.In the case of “demolition and violation on behalf of demolition”, it is necessary to cancel the legal documents identified as “illegal construction” (such as the decision of demolition within a time limit, notice of ordered correction, notice of correction within a time limit, etc.), so as to remove the cap of “illegal construction” and lay a good foundation for the follow-up rights protection.In this case, although the deadline demolition decision made by the defendant urban Management Bureau was not delivered to Ms. Lu, this decision has already appeared in other cases. If ignored, there will be obstacles in the follow-up rights protection.Therefore, in similar situations, we must consult professional lawyers in a timely manner and do not lose the opportunity to protect our rights.