The court sealed it first, and the recovery of idle land was limited?

Reading Tip: Due to a loan dispute, the court ruled to seal up the land involved. Later, the municipal government decided to recover the land without finding out the land ownership status. This kind of administrative behavior conflicts with judicial behavior, which is obviously inappropriate. However, according to the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Attachment, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Execution of People's Courts" promulgated on June 4, 2004, the time limit for people's courts to attach real estate in the future shall not exceed two years. Therefore, it is feasible to announce the resumption of the above plots after they expire.

[case]

1992101On October 29th, Sanya Shengfeng Real Estate Development Company of Hainan Province cooperated with Sanya Tourism Corporation to develop real estate projects and obtained the state-owned land use certificate. 19931June 10, Shengfeng Company signed a project transfer contract with China Everbright Company with the consent of the travel company. Afterwards, Shengfeng Company and Everbright Company had a debt dispute and appealed to the Provincial High Court, which ruled that the land use rights under the names of the tourism company and Shengfeng Company were transferred to Everbright Company. On March, 20065438+5 1 day, Sanya Tourism Corporation was involved in a debt dispute, and the Sanya Intermediate People's Court ruled to seal up the land of Everbright Company.

On June 5438+ 10, 2003, Sanya Municipal Government announced the Decision on Recovering the Land Use Right of 4 180.5 square meters of Jiefang 4th Road of Tourism Corporation and Shengfeng Company without compensation according to law (hereinafter referred to as 130). The transferee of this decision is Sanya Tourism Company and Sanya Shengfeng Real Estate Development Company, and decided to recover the land for free.

After being informed of the decision, Everbright Company filed an administrative lawsuit with Sanya Intermediate People's Court, requesting to cancel the decision No.2004. 130. the court held that the sanya municipal people's government failed to find out the basic fact that the land use right had been transferred to everbright company by the effective legal documents when it made the administrative punishment to recover the land use right. In the state of judicial seizure, it is not clear to make a decision to recover the land use right without compensation. And it is illegal to recover the land use right without lifting the seizure by the court. Decision 130 is revoked in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 54 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

[analysis]

From this case, we can see the difficulty of intensive land use and idle land recovery. According to this case, there are three difficulties:

After the court seals it up, can the government recover the land use right involved? Due to the loan dispute of Sanya Tourism Corporation, on March 1 day, 2006, Sanya Intermediate People's Court ruled to seal up the land involved. On June 5438+ 10, 2003, Sanya Municipal Government announced the Decision on Recovering the Land Use Right of 4 180.5 square meters of Jiefang 4th Road of Tourism Corporation and Shengfeng Company without compensation according to law. These administrative acts conflict with the judicial acts that were still valid at that time and are obviously inappropriate. However, according to the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Attachment, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Execution of People's Courts" promulgated on June 4, 2004, the time limit for people's courts to attach real estate in the future shall not exceed two years. Therefore, it is feasible for the Sanya Municipal Government and the Bureau of Land and Resources to announce the resumption of the above plots.

Can the effective legal documents of the people's court replace the land use right certificate? The court held that the Provincial High Court ruled that the land use rights under the names of tourism companies and Shengfeng companies were transferred to Everbright Company, and the civil mediation agreement had come into effect, so the basic fact that the land use rights were transferred to Everbright Company has been confirmed. This is obviously in conflict with the provisions of Articles 59 and 60 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Urban Real Estate Management Law. Therefore, in this case, Everbright Company can't confirm that Everbright Company has obtained the right to use the land involved before going to the Bureau of Land and Resources to register the change of land use right and obtaining the land use certificate with the effective documents of the court. The original state-owned land use certificates of the tourism company and Shengfeng Company are still valid. Of course, the legal documents that have come into effect in the people's courts cannot replace the land use right certificate.

What should the land and resources management department do to recover idle land in the future? In this case, just because the land ownership status is unclear, the disposal of idle land failed and the lesson was profound. In the future, the reclaimed land, especially the land with disputed ownership, needs to be carefully inquired and investigated by the court or other relevant units and departments until the ownership status is clear, and the decision on disposal can no longer be made hastily and publicized. Finally, we should stand firm, increase the propaganda of intensive land use, let the public opinion, judicial and administrative departments raise their awareness and take the initiative to move closer to the intensive land use policy.