The Theory of "number": the confusion of disputes over Rural Land transfer

Accordingly, the court confirmed that the plaintiff had the contractual management right of 3 mu of land, and the defendant paid the plaintiff more than 15000 yuan in land transfer fees from 2009 to 2013. To sum up, the court ordered Xu to return 14 plaintiffs' contracted land before October 31, 2014, and to pay 14 people's land transfer fees from July 2012 to July 2014 within 10 days from the date of entry into force of the judgment.

Comment: "number" on the confusion of disputes over Rural Land transfer

The poet Ai Qing once wrote: "Why do I often have tears in my eyes?" Because I love this land deeply. " The land continues the blood of our nation and the feelings of our country. Following such a cultural path, rural land transfer in the local context is related to the vital interests of farmers, rural social stability and agricultural transformation and upgrading, and has attracted much attention from the central government and all walks of life. The people's Court of Shanghai Pudong New area found that in recent years, with the acceleration of the transformation of social and economic structure and profound changes in the pattern of rural society and interests, disputes over rural land transfer have shown a frequent trend. among them, historical problems are intertwined with practical interests, policy-driven and illegal operations are mixed, which need to be further solved.

The entanglement has been resolved after many twists and turns.

"in 1992, when the plaintiff refused to cultivate the land because of low income and agricultural tax, the village committee of the defendant signed an agreement with him, agreeing that the use right of the plaintiff's 3 mu of land should be owned by the defendant. the defendant then leased the land together with the contracted land of other villagers to the LPG station." From arbitration to the court's third round of dispute resolution, the defendant Shanghai Pudong New area Advanced Village Committee has repeatedly stressed this.

The agreement mentioned by the defendant shall be signed with the plaintiff Gu. At that time, the defendant paid 5468.4 yuan in compensation to the plaintiff, and then paid various fees one after another until January 2009.

"this agreement has distinct historical characteristics. In the early 1990s, the circulation of rural land was not standardized, and the agreement between the two sides did not even specify the annual transfer fee; even the name of the contract used the word "land requisition agreement". " Judge Jin Yujie in charge of the first instance of the case pointed out.

Starting from 2009, the defendant re-signed a lease contract with Baxter Energy Development Company (former LPG station) for 3300 square meters of land, including the plaintiff's land, with a rent of 16500 yuan per year. During this period, the plaintiff failed to negotiate with the defendant to increase the transfer fee and applied to the Land contract Arbitration Commission for arbitration in September 2013. In November of that year, the plaintiff had the second round of rural land contractual management rights in 1999, and the defendant paid the plaintiff more than 15000 yuan in land transfer fees for 3 mu from 2009 to 2013.

In December 2013, because the transfer fee supported by the arbitration commission differed more than ten times from his claim, Gu sued to the court, demanding that the plaintiff be ordered to have the contractual management right to 3 mu of land, and the defendant returned more than 180000 yuan in the total rental income given to the defendant by the LPG station.

After the hearing, the court held that although the agreement was called the land requisition agreement, the court agreed with the determination of the arbitration commission that it is essentially a land transfer agreement, that is, the original and the defendant are the relationship of land transfer. As the transferee, the defendant bears the risk of the transfer of land and enjoys the operating income of the transfer. Its lease to the LPG station for the use of land is the legal relationship between the defendant and the LPG station, which the plaintiff has known since 1992. Even if the defendant's income exceeds the transfer fee paid to the plaintiff, it has nothing to do with the plaintiff.

For the transfer fees not paid by the defendant from 2009 to 2013, in view of the fact that there is no clear agreement on the payment standard between the two parties, the arbitration commission determined more than 15000 yuan with reference to the land transfer guidance price in Pudong New area, which was recognized by the court.

Accordingly, the court confirmed that the plaintiff had the contractual management right of 3 mu of land, and the defendant paid the plaintiff more than 15000 yuan in land transfer fees from 2009 to 2013.

Later, the plaintiff filed an appeal, and in August 2014, the court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict, pointing out: "as a person who disputes the right to the use of land, the village committee has been in unified management of the disputed land and leased out since 1992. Should enjoy the income of circulation operation. As for the income higher than the transfer fee paid to Gu, it is the result of consultation between the village committee and outsiders, in line with the provisions of the law, is also reasonable. "

Be jailed for tampering with land use

On May 28, 2014, the Lianmin Village Committee of Pudong New area sued Heye Company to the court, demanding the termination of the "contract for the transfer of contractual management rights" and the return of land.

It all started in 2009. In July of that year, the plaintiff transferred two pieces of land in the village totaling 111.1 mu to the defendant for planting. The two sides have agreed that it shall not be used for non-agricultural construction; the transfer fee of 1300 yuan per mu shall be adjusted according to the market situation; it will be paid before July 31 every year; if one party fails to perform its contractual obligations for more than one month, the other party has the right to terminate the contract.

In September 2010, the defendant sublet the land to Wu for use in a timber yard. At the same time, it is agreed that no brick houses can be built at will, but only temporary houses can be built in the planning area. After getting the land, Wu began to "show his strength": building colored steel houses on the basic farmland, paving roads and passageways with slag, and subletting some of the farmland to others.

According to the management staff hired by Wu, from February to July 2011, Wu hired more than 30 families, and Wu and the tenants poured concrete on part of the floor of the slab house. Wu admitted that "during the period, the management department and Xu, the legal representative of Wo Ye Company, once stopped it."

In October 2012, the procuratorate sued Wu for the crime of illegal occupation of agricultural land, accusing Wu of violating land management laws and regulations, illegally occupying agricultural land, changing the use of occupied land, and causing a great deal of damage to agricultural land.

"Wu did not illegally occupy agricultural land on purpose, and village cadres are suspected of laissez-faire. In addition, Wu used cement to cover a total area of 4.11 mu, which did not meet the standard of criminal prosecution. " Wu's defender defended.

In fact, according to the survey of the Shanghai Resources and Environment Supervision and testing Center of the Ministry of Land and Resources, the area of basic farmland occupied by Wu is equivalent to about 39.1 mu, exceeding the prosecution standard of 5 mu. In the area covered by buildings, the topsoil layer is consolidated and mixed with gravel, etc.; in the road area, the topsoil layer is compacted, the soil surface effective soil is lost, and the soil texture is changed; the natural quality of the land is reduced from 15 to 7.

The court held that Wu carried out infrastructure construction without authorization after renting the land, and allowed others to build houses and lay venues after subletting. The relevant departments and Xu have stopped the above acts, so Wu should be aware of the nature of the land involved, and should also be responsible for the unauthorized infrastructure construction and sublease behavior of allowing others to destroy.

In January 2013, in view of Wu's voluntary surrender and other circumstances, the court sentenced Wu to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 yuan for the crime of illegally occupying agricultural land.

When the time came for the trial of Lianmin Village Committee v. Wo Ye Company in October 2014, the village committee insisted on the resumption of the land. "Wo Yeh Company sublet the land to others without authorization, and did not pay the transfer fee from 2013 to the present."

After the trial, the court held that Wo Ye Company subleased the transferred land without authorization, resulting in serious damage to the planting conditions, and the failure to pay the royalty in accordance with the contract violated the contract, so it ruled that the contract between the two parties was terminated in accordance with the law. Wo Ye Company removed the additions and returned the land within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment.

14 villagers ask for reasonable consideration

Yan, a villager of Wanxing Village in Pudong New area, has 0.25 mu of contracted land. In 1999, Yan and Tang and other 14 land contractors "strung" their plots together with a total of 3.71 mu of land to Xu for farming. Before the abolition of agricultural tax in 2003, the agricultural tax they should bear was paid by Xu.

As they are all villagers in the same village and can trust each other, the two sides did not sign an agreement in accordance with the legal provisions of the written agreement required for the transfer of land management rights.

In 2003, major changes took place in the national agricultural policy, and agricultural taxes and fees were exempted. That is, from then on, Xu continued to contend for land, but did not bear any agricultural taxes and fees, nor did he pay any fees for Yan and others.

At the end of 2013, the two sides failed to mediate through the village committee on the resumption of land and land rent. In August 2014, 14 people, including Yan, went to court, demanding that the defendant Xu return their land by October 31 and calculate the rent for two years from July 2012 to July 2014 at the rate of 2000 yuan per mu.