Shijiazhuang case: steel factory was dismantled at night, no one admitted?The court confirmed that the town government had broken the law
(Note: In order to protect the privacy of the parties, the name of the original defendant is blurred) Two years ago, I handled a case, the party Mr. Qi was in a hurry to find us, very helpless.It turned out that its steel mill had been forcibly demolished during the night, but no one admitted who had carried it out.This kind of situation is also quite common in the process of demolition.However, it does bring some obstacles to the road of rights protection for the displaced.Today, we will share the interpretation of this case. How did Mr. Qi solve the difficulties and safeguard his legitimate rights and interests?A, operating more than ten years of steel factory was dismantled in the night more than ten years ago, Mr. Qi was introduced to the local opened a steel processing plant, but also for the record procedures, the business is wind and water.At the end of 2019, the village in the city was transformed, and Qi’s steel mill was also included in the demolition scope.Because Mr. Qi’s investment scale is relatively large, the demolition department agreed to determine the compensation price after evaluation at the beginning of the negotiation.However, as the evaluation work is carried out, the evaluation price has exceeded the expectation of the demolition department, so the evaluation is no longer carried out.Demolition work is still continuing, and constantly speeding up, Mr. Qi steel factory around the demolition has been basically completed, will soon be demolished to the steel factory, compensation matters can not be reached through consultation.Soon, the town to Mr. Qi made a deadline to dismantle the decision, asked Mr. Qi to dismantle steel plant within 10 days, otherwise it will be enforced, the cost of dismantling by Mr. Qi to bear.Later, Mr. Qi’s steel mill was demolished overnight.Ii. Filed an administrative lawsuit according to law, but the defendant town government refused to admit that the demolition was carried out. After the steel mill was demolished, Mr. Qi continued to negotiate with the town about compensation, but failed several times.Seeing more than ten years of efforts in ruins, Mr. Qi decided to protect his rights according to law.Sue the town government to the court, request the court to confirm the defendant town government to implement the administrative act of forcibly demolishing steel mill illegal.However, during the trial, the defendant town government refused to admit that the demolition was carried out. It said that the plaintiff had no evidence to prove that the demolition was carried out by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff’s lawsuit has no factual basis and the defendant is wrongly listed, so the plaintiff’s lawsuit should be rejected.Suddenly, Mr. Qi did not know what to do. He did not expect the town government to reply like this, and his blood pressure rose.Iii. The attorney argued and advocated his rights actively. The court confirmed that the defendant town government violated the law in the face of the defendant’s denial, and the plaintiff’s attorney actively presented evidence to the court for the following reasons: 1.The plaintiffs have filed with the court a “deadline demolition decision” issued by the town government, which clearly states that if the plaintiffs do not demolish the mill themselves, the town government will enforce it.In this case, the plaintiff did not dismantle the steel mill, and according to the “deadline decision on demolition”, it is the demolition act carried out by the defendant.The plaintiff has pointed to the defendant as the executor of the demolition act and fulfilled the burden of proof. If the defendant does not admit that it is the executor, it shall provide evidence to prove or clearly point out that other subjects carried out the demolition act. Otherwise, the defendant shall be identified as the executor and bear the responsibility for the demolition of the steel mill.2. In this case, the defendant does not have the legal authority to directly force the demolition of the steel mill, and the law does not authorize him to do so.In addition, the plaintiff did not sign an agreement or obtain compensation, and the defendant carried out the demolition without basis, which seriously infringed the plaintiff’s land use right, plant ownership and production management right.In the end, the court accepted the plaintiff’s point of view and decided that the forcible demolition carried out by the defendant’s town government was illegal.In the process of demolition and removal, it is often not acknowledged that the forced demolition is carried out or the forced demolition is shifted to the village committee and the construction unit.But when encountering this kind of circumstance, not only can’t panic, and want to arrange case material comprehensively, extract silk from the cocoon from it, find favorable evidence to lawsuit.In general, the administrative organ that makes the decision of limited demolition, the notice of liability reform and the decision of forced demolition is the subject of forced demolition, unless it can point out that other subjects are the subject of forced demolition.In this case, Mr. Qi under the guidance of the attorney, finally won the lawsuit, in fact, is not an easy thing.Land expropriation and demolition cases involve complex situations, diverse legal relations and numerous procedures, and it is generally difficult for non-professionals to grasp the direction of the case.It is suggested that those who encounter similar situations must consult professional lawyers in time. Perhaps a phone call can “clear the clouds and see the moon”.