Own the land contracted for more than 20 years? Reject the lawsuit!
Baoding ZhongXX, Hebei
Civil verdict
(2023) Ji 06 Min Zhong No. 1253
Appellant (Plaintiff in the original trial): Li XX, female, Han nationality, living in Hebei Province.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Li XX, lawyer of Beijing XX Law Firm.
Appellee (the defendant in the original trial): Wang XX, male, Han nationality, living in Hebei Province.
Authorized agents ad litem: Wang XX, He XX, lawyers of Beijing XX Law Firm.
The third party in the original trial: Diaoxixx Villagers' Committee of xx City, located in Hebei Province.
Legal representative: xx, director of the village committee.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Gao XX, legal worker of XX Legal Service Office of XX City.
The appellant Li XX filed an appeal to this court against the civil ruling of the People's Court of Zhuozhou City, Hebei Province (2022) Ji 0681 Min Chu No. 5640-1 due to the dispute over the right to land contractual management with the appellee Wang XX and the village committee of xx town, xx city, the third party in the original trial (hereinafter referred to as the village committee). After the case was filed on February 15, 2023, the Court formed a collegial panel to hear the case according to law. The appellant Li XX and his entrusted agent ad litem Li XX, the appellee Wang XX and his entrusted agent ad litem He XX, and the entrusted agent ad litem of the original village committee XX attended the court proceedings. The trial of this case has now been concluded.
Li XX's appeal request: revoke the Civil Ruling (2022) Ji 0681 Min Chu No. 5640-1) issued by Zhuozhou People's Court, and order Zhuozhou People's Court to continue hearing the case according to law. Facts and reasons: The court of first instance should correct the erroneous ruling caused by unclear facts and wrong application of law. 1、 The appellant has obtained the right to contract and manage the land involved in the case since the first round of land contracting around 1982. Up to now, there has not been any situation that led to the loss of the plaintiff's right to contract and manage the land involved in the case. The appellant enjoys the right to contract the land involved in the case according to law. According to the evidence of the original defendant in the first instance and the cross examination opinions of the three parties, it can be found that the appellant has obtained the contract management right of the land involved in the case since 1982. Although the first round of land contract period has expired, it is the basic national policy of China's rural land system to "extend for another 30 years" after the expiration, so the appellant still enjoys the contract right of the land when suing; Whether or not the village committee signed the second round of land extension contract in time does not affect the fact that the rural land contract period is "extended for another 30 years". In national practice, there has never been a case where the right to contract and operate has been determined to be lost simply because the contract period has expired. The court of first instance held that the pending status of the land contract right involved in the case was a mistake of fact determination. 2、 The Rural Land Contract signed by the appellant and the village committee in 2017 cannot be the basis for the appellant to lose the land contract right involved in the case. 1. The land involved in the case was not included in the 2017 Rural Land Contract because the appellee had occupied the land for a long time and refused to return it. The village committee of the third person identified the land involved in the case as a dispute, so it was not included in the new contract. As early as 2015, the appellant repeatedly asked the appellee to remove the impediment to the land contract right and return the land involved in the case. The appellee refused all the time, and the dispute was submitted to the village committee for mediation. The village committee issued the Certificate on March 27, 2017 after several unsuccessful mediation attempts "Li XX and Wang XX, the villagers of our village, have a dispute over the land of the Women's Canal, which has been mediated unsuccessfully by the village committee for many times." This is to certify that the reason why the Rural Land Contract signed in May 2017 failed to include the land involved in the case is precisely because the defendant has occupied the contracted land for a long time and refused to return it; The village committee requires the appellant to sign a contract for the land that is not in dispute first, and has not signed a contract for the land involved in the case that is in dispute for the time being. The village committee will refer it to all parties for settlement through litigation. 2. "This contract will come into force on the date of signing, and the original family contract will be rescinded" is the form clause of the contract, which is the content of thousands of standard contracts printed in a unified way, not the agreed clause of the contract signed between the appellant and the village committee, which does not conform to the true meaning of the appellant's active claim for the local contract right involved at that time, It is not the real intention of the village committee, and therefore the appellant's right to contract the land involved in the case cannot be denied. The land contract right enjoyed by farmers is continuous and cannot be revoked without legal reasons, which is the basic national policy of China's rural system. The defendant claims that the plaintiff's loss of the right to sue for land contract cannot be established. 3、 This case does not conform to the legal situation of "the administrative authority determines the ownership of land", which is a case that is not a land ownership dispute and is specifically excluded in the Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Ownership Disputes. The plaintiff and the defendant cannot solve the ownership of the contract right through "administrative confirmation". 1. According to Article 55 of the Rural Land Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, disputes over land contract management "can be directly brought to the people's court", instead of "administrative confirmation of rights" as one of the ways to resolve disputes over land contract management rights. 2. The contentious content of this case is a case that is not a land ownership dispute and is explicitly excluded in the Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Ownership Disputes issued by the Ministry of Land and Resources. Although Article 14 of the Land Administration Law stipulates that "disputes over land ownership and use right shall be settled by the parties through consultation; if consultation fails, the people's government shall handle them", not all disputes are "handled by the people's government"; There are more detailed and specific regulations on land ownership disputes that should be investigated and handled by administrative organs. Article 14 of the Measures for Investigation and Handling of Land Ownership Disputes issued by the Ministry of Land and Resources clearly stipulates that "the following cases shall not be accepted as dispute cases: (1) land infringement cases; (2) administrative region boundary dispute cases; (3) land violation cases; (4) rural land contracting management right dispute cases". This case is a typical "dispute case of rural land contractual management right", which is clearly excluded by laws and regulations and does not belong to the dispute case of land ownership. The plaintiff and the defendant could not solve the problem of ownership of the contracting right through "administrative confirmation". 3. The court of first instance requested that "the administrative organ should determine the ownership of the land involved, and then determine the distribution of compensation for land acquisition", which in fact gave up the judicial trial responsibility for the disputed content.
Wang XX argued that the facts found in the first instance were clear and the applicable law was correct, so please maintain it according to law.
The village committee said that we recognized the first instance ruling.
Li XX filed a lawsuit to the court of first instance: 1. Request that the defendant immediately hand over the 3.036 mu contracted land located in xx town, xx city, and remove the attachments on the land and restore the original state of the contracted land. 2. The litigation costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant. Later, the claim was changed as follows: 1. The claim was that the total compensation for land acquisition of 3.036 mu of contracted land in the Land Acquisition Compensation Agreement signed between the defendant Wang XX and the village committee, which involved the plaintiff, was 941.16 million yuan, belonged to the plaintiff; 2. The litigation costs of this case were borne by the defendant.
After examination, the court of first instance held that, according to the provisions of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the right to land contractual management was established when the contract for the right to land contractual management came into effect. The registration authority should issue certificates such as the land contractual management certificate and the forest right certificate to the holder of the right to land contractual management, and register and record them to confirm the right to land contractual management. In this case, the plaintiff requested to judge that the land requisition compensation agreement signed between the defendant Wang XX and the village committee involved
And the plaintiff's compensation for land acquisition of 3036 mu of contracted land, totaling 941.16 million yuan, belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted a round of land contract form to prove that his family enjoyed the land contract right. The third party village committee cross examined that the village collective had carried out a second round of land contract, so a round of land contract form could not be used as a proof of land ownership. In addition, Article 8 of the Land Contract signed between the plaintiff and the village committee submitted by the defendant stated that "this contract shall come into force as of the date of signing, and the original household contract shall be terminated", and the contracted land recorded in this contract does not include the land involved in the case. After reviewing the evidence submitted by both parties, neither the plaintiff Li XX nor the defendant Wang XX has submitted the land ownership certificate issued by the relevant department, so this case should be a land ownership dispute. The administrative authority should confirm the ownership of the land involved and then determine the distribution of land acquisition compensation. To sum up, in accordance with Article 333 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, Article 14 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, and Articles 122 and 127 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, it is decided: "The lawsuit of the plaintiff Li XX is dismissed."
The court found that in the second instance, the parties submitted evidence according to law around the appeal request. The court organized the parties to conduct evidence exchange and cross examination. The Appellee submitted: the contract certificate and contract of the outsider are copies, which prove that Diao San Village carried out a second round of contracting in 1999, and the current round of contracting that the Appellant adduced has been invalidated.
The appeal hostage certificate said that the evidence was a copy, its authenticity was not recognized, and the name on it was not a party to the case, so the evidence was not related to the case.
The cross examination of the village committee said that the evidence was not the original, and we would not comment.
As for the facts disputed by the parties in the second instance, the Court finds as follows: confirm the facts ascertained by the court of first instance.
The Court believes that whether the case should be heard in entity or not. The appellant claimed that he had obtained the right to land contractual management since the first round of land contracting in 1982, and the case should be heard by the entity. In this regard, the appellee claimed that the land involved in a round of cases was contracted by the appellant, who later returned the contract and contracted it. The village committee of the third person said that the village collective had carried out the second round of land contract, and some had issued the land contract management certificate and contract. Now neither the Appellant nor the Appellee has submitted the land ownership certificate issued by relevant departments. In the first instance, it was determined that the case was a land ownership dispute, and the administrative organ should confirm that the ownership of the land involved was not improper and was in line with the law.
To sum up, Li XX's appeal request could not be established, and the first instance ruling found that the facts were clear and the application of the law was correct. According to the provisions of Item 1, Paragraph 1, Article 177 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original ruling. This ruling is final.
Chief Judge Kang XX
Judge Guo Xiao
Judge Li XX
Clerk Zhang XX
