Village committee: forcibly tear open is I stem, have nothing to do with collect a branch!Court: You’re not qualified. Step aside
Village committee: forcibly tear open is I stem, have nothing to do with collect a branch!Court: You are not qualified, stand aside the village committee as a grass-roots self-governing organization, is the most closely connected with the villagers of the economic organization, in the village, large and small things will generally have the village committee’s participation.However, village committees are not administrative organs, and no matter how close they are to the villagers and how many things they are in charge of, they have no right to exercise administrative powers.For example, in land expropriation and demolition, only the administrative organ is the subject of responsibility. Even if the illegal forcible demolition is actually carried out by the village committee, the responsibility for forcible demolition is the subject of responsibility because the village committee is not qualified, and it must be the administrative organ that commissioned the forcible demolition behind.Now, let’s take a look at relevant cases of the Supreme Court.In 2017, taiyuan Wanbolin District community launched the transformation of urban villages.On October 7, 2017, the taiyuan Wan Bailin area small valley JieBan big well valley community urban village reconstruction plan for compensation and resettlement for the demolition and clearly, “according to the overall arrangement of urban village reconstruction and the need of municipal infrastructure construction, in accordance with the” government leading, planning, leading, the whole village demolition, currency settlement ‘urban village reconstruction principle,The two community committees and the community village reconstruction working group decided to start the reconstruction of the village in the city of our community.”On August 11, 2018, Zhang and other 6 people forced demolition of the house, Zhang and other 6 people to the Intermediate People’s Court of Yangquan City, Shanxi Province, requesting confirmation of the Wanbailin District government, Xiaojingyu Street office forced demolition of illegal behavior.The first-instance court held that according to the reconstruction principle of urban village determined in the compensation and resettlement plan and the existing evidence materials, it could be identified as forced demolition by the defendant.The forcible demolition is illegal if the forcible demolition fails to demand notification and notify the rights of reconsideration and litigation before the forcible demolition.The defendant refused to accept the case and filed an appeal to the High Court of Shanxi Province. The High Court held that although the reconstruction of urban villages was carried out under the deployment of the government, the initial stage of demolishing above-ground buildings to create conditions for the next development was generally completed by the village committee and villagers through consultation, and there was no government action.The village committee itself admitted that zhang and others who identified themselves as the village committee pulled them out of the house and then demolished it, with the head of the village committee and the party secretary present.The judgment quashed the first judgment and dismissed the suit.Zhang, etc., to the Supreme Court application for retrial.The Supreme Court held that the focus of this case was whether the district government and the street office were the appropriate defendants.The Supreme People’s Court on the applicable < administrative procedure law of the People's Republic of China > the explanation of “in paragraph 3 of article 20:” no laws, regulations and rules and regulations, the administrative organ authorized its internal institutions, resident agencies or other organizations of exercise administration powers and authorities of office, belongs to the administrative procedure law article 26 entrusted.If a party refuses to accept a lawsuit, the administrative authority shall be the defendant.”Although the neighborhood committee will issue a situation statement, said forced demolition is their own implementation, but because it does not have the power to forcibly demolish others’ houses, so, the neighborhood committee forced demolition should be regarded as entrusted by the administrative organ, the corresponding legal responsibility should be undertaken by the entrusted organ.Therefore, as grass-roots self-governing organizations, village committees and neighborhood committees are not administrative organizations and do not have administrative powers.Accordingly, land acquisition demolition work should be conducted by administrative organs, if there is no corresponding legal authorization, the village committee or neighborhood committees involved in implementing the only administrative organ to implement compulsory demolition, then even the village committee or neighborhood committee to come forward, responsibility, and but because body unwell,It can only be regarded that the illegal act is entrusted by the administrative organ, and the corresponding legal liability shall be borne by the entrusted administrative organ.