Review and trial of this case:
This case has gone through three years, four trials and four sessions. The facts identified in the ruling and judgment are completely unclear, the relevant evidence is simply unknown, and the applicable law is obviously wrong. The two rulings that came into effect by the Intermediate People's Court are qualitatively opposite to this case.
In April 2007, the case was prosecuted, filed and tried on the grounds of land compensation disputes.
Case (2007) Cheng Yan Min Chu ZiNo. 104 of the first instance was filed as a land compensation dispute, and it was ruled that the plaintiff's lawsuit was essentially a land use right dispute, which should be handled by the people's government and not under the jurisdiction of the people's court.
The plaintiff appealed against the ruling.
The second trial (2007) heard the case of Lanfamin Sanzhongzi No.650, and ruled that the plaintiffs Wang Xifang and Bian Lei appealed against the land compensation dispute ... The expropriated wasteland belongs to Gaotan villagers, and Wang Xifang and Bian Lei, as legal villagers in Gaotan village, have the right to share the compensation for the expropriated wasteland. Revoke its ruling and assign it to the Chengguan District People's Court for trial.
Immediately, the case was put on file in March 2008 after 15 months of trial.
(2008) No.095 Judgment of Chengfa Third Trial changed the focus of disputes between the two parties and held a trial; The evidence for ascertaining the facts has not been cross-examined, and the ascertained facts have nothing to do with the case; There is no legal basis to prove the final decision, and the main evidence that should belong to the fact is insufficient; The law applicable to the rejection of the plaintiff's claim is inappropriate.
Therefore, the plaintiff decided to appeal.
The fourth trial (2009) ruled that the facts and reasons of the appellant's appeal were not rechecked, but the second trial (2007) ruled that the judgment of the third trial (which has entered into force) was specially rechecked (this case is a land compensation dispute lawsuit, whether it belongs to the jurisdiction of the people's court), and the opposite ruling was made again, which was not supported by facts. "After examination, our hospital believes that disputes arising from land use rights should be handled by the people's government according to law. Therefore, the appellant's claim does not belong to the scope of civil cases under the jurisdiction of the people's court. " . The Intermediate People's Court has made two different definitions of a fact. What the complainant can't understand is that Wang Ruilian, the presiding judge of this case, is a member of the collegiate bench in case No.650 (2007) of Lanfamin Sanzhongzi.
The above facts are supported by four legal documents.
There is no dispute between the defendant and the plaintiff in this case:
This case has gone through four sessions: (2007) Cheng Yanmin Chuzno. 104, (2007) Fa Lan minsanzhongzi No.650, (2008) Chengfa Yan Min Zi Chu No.095, and (2009) Fa Lan minsanzhongzi No.678, the undisputed facts of the original case and the defendant are all owned by Gaotan village. Collective management of Gaotan village, a wasteland involved in the case. Moreover, Gaotan Village Committee paid each villager a land compensation of 1.35 million yuan. The requisitioned wasteland belongs to Gaotan villagers, and the complainant is a member of the collective economic organization of the village Committee where the defendant is located and has not been allocated.
Cause of complaint
1. In 2009, Lanfamin Sanzhongzi No.678 ruled that the basic facts were lack of evidence1. The facts identified in this ruling are not proved by evidence, and the facts identified are wrong.
In 2009, the ruling of Lanfamin Sanzhongzi No.678 stated: "After examination, our court considers that the Appellants Wang Xifang and Bian Lei v. the Appellee Gaotan Village Committee for compensation for land acquisition. In fact, the dispute between the two sides is a dispute over the land use right of 0.37 mu of wasteland involved.
The ruling has no factual and legal basis. "We believe that the Appellants Wang Xifang and Bian Lei v. the Appellee Gaotan Village Committee's case of land requisition compensation. The dispute between the two parties is actually a dispute over the land use right of 0.37 mu of wasteland involved. "
The appellee was absent during the trial of this case, and the evidence of the defendant in the original trial could not prove that the land compensation claimed by the plaintiff was related to "0.37 mu of wasteland". There is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant about the land use right of Nanhe wasteland.
The land compensation involved in this case is the compensation for land ownership after the Lanzhou Municipal People's Government requisitioned the Nanhe wasteland. The order of compensation is all members of rural economic organizations, not collective economic organizations and land contractors. Whether land is contracted or not is not necessarily related to obtaining land compensation. It is even less likely to be related to the so-called "0.37 mu of wasteland involved" in the ruling.
2. There is no factual and legal basis to prove that it is wrong for the ruling to characterize this case as a "land use right dispute".
This case is a lawsuit brought because the plaintiff's rights were violated in the process of land compensation distribution.
In 2007, Cheng Yanmin Chuzno. 104 was also put on file for trial on the grounds of land compensation dispute. Later, it was ruled that the plaintiff's lawsuit was essentially a dispute over land use rights, which should be handled by the people's government and not under the jurisdiction of the people's court. The plaintiff appealed against the ruling.
(2007) Lan Famin Sanzhongzi No.650 ruled: "Wang Xifang and Bian Lei, the plaintiffs in the original trial of this case, appealed against the land compensation dispute ..." Therefore, this case belongs to the land compensation dispute and has been reviewed and ruled by the people's court with jurisdiction.
In this case, the original judgment of Chengfa Minyan Chuzi (2008) No.095 was also tried in the case of "land compensation dispute". The appellant's appeal reason in this case is "land compensation dispute"! After the appeal, the appellant found that the cause of action of summons No.678 (2009) in this case was "house ownership" dispute. The appellant submitted a written application to the court to restore the cause of action.
Article 24 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Rural Land Contract Disputes stipulates: "Rural collective economic organizations, villagers' committees and villagers' groups may decide to distribute the collected land compensation fees within their collective economic organizations in accordance with democratic procedures stipulated by laws and regulations. When the land acquisition compensation and resettlement plan is determined, it already has the membership of this collective economic organization and requests to pay the corresponding share, which should be supported. "
It can be seen that this case is a land compensation dispute, which is very clearly a civil case under the jurisdiction of the people's court. Then, it is obviously wrong to characterize this case as a "land use right dispute" without the support of facts and legal basis.
Two. (2009) Lanfamin Sanzhongzi No.678 ruled that the applicable law was wrong.
The defendant Gaotan Village expropriated all the Nanhe River, and the city distributed land compensation, which Gaotan Village Committee distributed to every villager 13500 yuan. The complainant is a member of the collective economic organization of Gaotan Village, but it was not distributed to the complainant.
Article 24 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Rural Land Contract Disputes stipulates: "Rural collective economic organizations, villagers' committees and villagers' groups may decide to distribute the collected land compensation fees within their collective economic organizations in accordance with democratic procedures stipulated by laws and regulations. When the land acquisition compensation and resettlement plan is determined, it already has the membership of this collective economic organization and requests to pay the corresponding share, which should be supported. " It can be seen that this case is a very clear land compensation dispute and belongs to a civil case under the jurisdiction of the people's court.
The effective ruling of Lan Fa Min San Zhong Zi (2007) No.650 made a special review ruling on whether this case belongs to the jurisdiction of the people's court: it was determined that the plaintiffs Wang Xifang and Bian Lei appealed for land compensation disputes ... The expropriated wasteland belonged to Gaotan villagers, and Wang Xifang and Bian Lei, as legal villagers in Gaotan village, had the right to share the compensation for the expropriated wasteland. Revoke its ruling and assign it to the Chengguan District People's Court for trial. "
Then, (2009) judgment No.678 of Lanfamin Sanzhongzi held that: "After examination, our court held that the case of Appellants Wang Xifang and Bian Lei v. the Appellee Gaotan Village Committee for compensation for land acquisition, in fact, the dispute between the two parties was about the land use right dispute involving 0.37 mu of wasteland. According to the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China, disputes over land use rights shall be handled by the people's government according to law. Therefore, the appellant's claim does not belong to the scope of civil cases under the jurisdiction of the people's court. " Obviously wrong.
According to the above judicial interpretation, this case belongs to the lawsuit of land compensation dispute, and it is clear that the land compensation dispute belongs to the civil case under the jurisdiction of the people's court. In this case, the first paragraph of Article 16 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Land Management Law was applied, and it was wrong to rule that the plaintiff's claim did not fall within the scope of civil cases under the jurisdiction of the people's court.
Three, the plaintiff's prosecution behavior conforms to the statutory conditions for the prosecution and acceptance of civil cases, and belongs to the scope of civil cases under the jurisdiction of the people's court.
On July 9, 2000, the Supreme People's Court pointed out in reply to the Guangdong Provincial High Court's case on whether the people's court accepts the dispute over the income distribution of rural collective economy: "The dispute between rural collective economic organizations and their members due to the income distribution belongs to the dispute between equal civil subjects. If the parties bring a lawsuit to the people's court on this dispute, the people's court shall accept it as long as it conforms to the provisions of Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). Article 24 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Rural Land Contract Disputes also clearly stipulates that "... if the compensation and resettlement scheme for land acquisition has already been a member of the collective economic organization when it is determined, it will be supported if it requests to pay the corresponding share. "
After Wang Xifang petitioned the Lanzhou Bureau for Letters and Calls on the dispute over the allocation of land compensation fees, the Lanzhou Bureau for Letters and Calls gave him a clear answer: "The petitions you raised are within the scope of the people's courts. According to the provisions of Article 15 of the Regulations on Letters and Calls, please submit it to the relevant people's court. "
In this wasteland expropriation, the village Committee also signed a land expropriation compensation agreement with the Nanhe Office (namely the Nanhe Dredging Project Headquarters Office). The village committee uniformly issues land compensation fees, and the village committee uniformly manages and uses the collective retained part of land acquisition compensation. Therefore, Gaotan Village Committee is the only, clear and definite defendant.
According to Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the plaintiff has a direct interest in this case, and the defendant Gaotan Village Committee is also very clear, and the plaintiff's claim, facts and reasons are also very specific. The judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court also clearly stipulates that this case belongs to the scope of the people's court. The defendant Gaotan Village Committee failed to pay the plaintiff its due share of land compensation fee, which was not only the defendant's failure to perform the legal debts owed to the plaintiff, but also the defendant's infringement on the plaintiff's property rights. Disputes over land compensation fees and their distribution belong to civil disputes between equal subjects. The people's government has no administrative jurisdiction over this case, and the people's courts have absolute jurisdiction over this case.
Four. (2009) Case No.678 of Lanfaming Sanzhongzi was seriously illegal.
1, the trial of this case violated the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law 15 1.
Article 15 1 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the people's court of second instance shall examine the relevant facts and applicable laws of the appeal. However, the ruling did not examine the factual reasons and applicable laws of the appellant's appeal. On the contrary, it is improper to make a different ruling on the ruling (2007) No.650, which has come into effect, because the case belongs to the jurisdiction of the people's court and is not supported by factual basis.
The appellant's grounds of appeal in this case are as follows: 1. This program is illegal. Second, it is wrong to apply the focus of the dispute between the two parties in the judgment. 3. The evidence (defendant) that the judgment finds the facts has not been cross-examined. Four, the final judgment did not cite legal basis to prove that the main evidence of the facts was insufficient. 5. The law applicable to the rejection of the plaintiff's claim is inappropriate. The appellant of intransitive verb has conclusive evidence that the focus of the dispute in this case is "the appellee should pay the appellant compensation for land expropriation of this wasteland 13500 yuan", and the cited legal basis is appropriate and the stated reasons are sufficient, so it is not adopted.
Obviously, the ruling did not examine the relevant facts of the appeal and the applicable law, which violated the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law 15 1.
2. The trial of this case violated the provisions of Civil Procedure Law 153.
Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) * * * The people's court of second instance shall, after hearing the case, deal with it separately according to the following circumstances: (1) If the original judgment finds the facts clear and the applicable law is correct, it shall rule to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment; (2) If the original judgment was wrongly applied by law, the judgment shall be changed according to law; (3) If the facts ascertained in the original judgment are wrong, or the facts ascertained in the original judgment are unclear and the evidence is insufficient, the original judgment shall be revoked and sent back to the people's court that originally tried the case for retrial. (4) If the original judgment violates legal procedures and may affect the correct judgment of the case, the original judgment shall be revoked and sent back to the people's court that originally tried the case for retrial.
(2009) Lanfamin Sanzhongzi No.678 ruled as follows: 1. Revoke the civil judgment (2008) Cheng Fa Min Yan Chu Zi No.095 of Chengguan District People's Court of Lanzhou City; 2. Reject the appeals of Appellants Wang Xifang and Bian Lei.
Combined with the above legal provisions, compared with this case, it is also improper to make a ruling to revoke the original judgment without review and confirmation. And if the original judgment is revoked in accordance with the above provisions, it shall be sent back to the people's court that originally tried for a new trial. Obviously, this case ruled that the original judgment was annulled and the appellant Wang Xifang and Bian Lei were dismissed, which violated the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law 153.
Verb (abbreviation of verb) The case of Wang Xifang and Bian Lei v. the membership dispute of the village collective economic organization, which was recognized by our court in Yan Min No.095 (2008), was not recognized by our court.
In the first trial, the evidence 1- 15 submitted by the plaintiff and the witness Liang provided by the appellee proved that the plaintiff was not only a farmer in Gaotan village, but also a member of the village collective economic organization, and the appellee had no objection to the above evidence. According to Article 72 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, the court of first instance should recognize its probative force and clarify the facts it proves in the factual part of the judgment, but the judgment of first instance did not give any explanation.
Intransitive Verb (2008) Cheng Fa No.095 found the facts wrong.
1. Our court believes that the compensation subject of some illegal land compensation is some villagers.
Article 26 of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "land compensation fees shall be owned by rural collective economic organizations ..." Article 24 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Rural Land Contract Disputes stipulates that "those who are already members of this collective economic organization when the land acquisition compensation and resettlement plan is determined shall be supported."
The above laws and explanations clearly stipulate that the compensation subject of land compensation is rural collective economic organizations, that is, all members of rural collective economic organizations. However, in the "part considered by the court", the first-instance judgment wrongly considered that the appellee's behavior of paying land compensation fees to some villagers was legal.
2. The judgment ignored the trial facts of this case in the part of "the court thinks", subjectively assumed the facts of this case, and legalized the appellee's illegal payment of land compensation.
Our first-instance judgment held that the distribution of land compensation fees should go through democratic procedures, and later pointed out that the respondent's behavior of paying land compensation fees to some villagers was not improper. One conclusion that can be drawn from this statement is that the respondent's behavior of paying land compensation to some villagers is through democratic procedures. In fact, the evidence 4 cited by the appellee in the first instance was only the summary of the discussion at the village committee meeting. The appellant pointed out in the court of first instance that the formation of the evidence was illegal, and the appellee did not refute the appellant's objection. According to Article 24 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Rural Land Contract Disputes, Article 17 and Item 3 of Article 19 of the Organic Law of Villagers' Committees of the People's Republic of China, the appellee did not decide to pay the land compensation fee through legal democratic procedures, that is, more than half of the villagers over the age of 18 or more than two-thirds of the households in the village voted by a majority.
In fact, the appellee paid land compensation to some villagers not only without legal democratic procedures, but also in violation of the provisions of laws and judicial interpretations. The court of first instance actually believed that the appellee's behavior was legal by fabricating the fact that there was no democratic procedure and the rhetoric without legal basis.
Seven. In 2008, the focus of the dispute between the two parties in this case was that it was wrong in the judgment No.095 of Chengfa Yan Min Zi Chu.
(2008) Chengfa Yan Min Zi Chu 095 claims: "The focus of the dispute between the two parties in this case is whether there is a causal relationship between the defendant Gaotan Village paying compensation for land acquisition to the villagers after the disputed wasteland in this case was requisitioned and whether the villagers contracted the wasteland." This focus is not the focus of the dispute between the two sides announced in court. It was announced in court that the focus of the dispute between the original defendant and the defendant around the prosecution and the defense was whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff the compensation for land acquisition on this wasteland 13500 yuan. There is a clear record in the trial transcript, which can prove that the focus of the dispute between the two parties in this case stated in the (2008) Yan Min Zi Chu No.095 judgment is wrong.