(2022) Jing03 Minzhong * * *

【 Reason for recommendation 】

This case is a typical property rights protection dispute in the context of non residential relocation. The plaintiff claims that they planted trees in the designated relocation area and filed a lawsuit as the property owner of the trees, demanding compensation for resettlement in accordance with the relocation policy.

After accepting the client's commission, the lawyer of our firm conducted a specific analysis of the case and believed that although the plaintiff claimed property rights protection, their lawsuit request was essentially a dispute over the withdrawal of resettlement compensation. Therefore, this case is not essentially a property rights protection dispute, but a resettlement compensation dispute contract dispute. Our lawyers have made a lot of preparations based on the fact that the plaintiff has not yet established a legal relationship for compensation contracts for relocation and resettlement with cooperatives and agricultural industrial and commercial companies. In the end, the court basically adopted the representative opinion of our lawyers, obtained a winning judgment, and achieved a result that satisfied the client very much.


[Client] (Defendant in the original trial, Appellee): A village economic cooperative in Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the "Cooperative")

[Counterparty] (Plaintiff and Appellant in the original trial): Su

[Other Parties] (Defendant and Appellee in the Original Trial): A certain agricultural and industrial and commercial company in Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural and Industrial and Commercial Company")

[Claim of the other party]: Order the cooperative and the agricultural industrial and commercial company to compensate Su according to the compensation standards and methods stipulated in the "Compensation Measures for Non Residential House Demolition of * * * * Project".


【 Basic Case 】

Su claimed that he had leased hundreds of acres of wasteland from the cooperative in 2014. After leasing the wasteland, Su invested funds to cultivate it and plant trees. In 2017, the wasteland leased by Su was included in the scope of shantytown renovation. However, in 2021, the cooperative falsely claimed that Su had encroached on basic farmland and demanded that Su vacate the seedlings and return the land. Therefore, the cooperative and the agricultural industry and commerce company were required to compensate Su according to the compensation standards and methods stipulated in the "Compensation Measures for Non Residential Housing Demolition of * * * * Projects".

[Opinion of our lawyer's representative]

Su requested that the cooperative and agricultural industrial and commercial company compensate him according to the compensation method for relocation, essentially claiming compensation for relocation. Therefore, this case is not a property rights protection dispute, but a contract dispute for relocation compensation. However, Su has not yet reached an agreement on the issue of relocation and resettlement with the cooperative and the agricultural industry and commerce company, and has not established a legal relationship for relocation and resettlement compensation contracts. Therefore, this case does not fall within the scope of civil cases accepted by the people's court.

Summary of the Judgment

Civil litigation is a lawsuit filed between citizens, legal persons, other organizations, and among themselves as equal subjects due to property and personal relationships. In this case, Su's lawsuit request is not specific, and although Su filed a lawsuit for property protection dispute, requesting the cooperative and the agricultural industry and commerce company to compensate Su according to the compensation standards and methods stipulated in the "Compensation Measures for Non Residential House Demolition of * * * Project", the essence of the dispute is still a dispute arising from compensation and resettlement. Su did not sign a relocation compensation agreement with the cooperative and the agricultural industry and commerce company, and the dispute between the two parties does not fall within the scope of civil case acceptance.

【 Judgment Result 】

Reject Su's lawsuit