|
|
Newspaper Reporter Juju Wang,http://182.92.100.242/qiongyoucms/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1576562
Wu Miao Quan Hangzhou residents recently under the auspices of public security personnel, received 1,000 yuan damages. Although he and his neighbors by playing this year for the demolition of a series of lawsuits have no results, but he sued the local police administration not won the case in the demolition of disputes, or let him feel more pleased.
Questioned the legality of the demolition of the residents sued the Bureau
February 20, 2008, Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Xiaoshan District Construction Bureau to land reserve center issued a demolition permit, agreed to Chengxiang street Plum Village community building renovation. Demolition permit records project land area of 225 acres.
When the implementation of the demolition, the relocatees are demanding Xiaoshan District Construction Bureau offers construction project approval documents,http://bbs.zhiyoo.com/home.php?mod=spacecp&ac=blog&blogid=, documents and information related to the demolition of construction land planning license, state-owned land use right of the approval document, plum floor city reconstruction project and other policy basis, but construction bureau He has been unable to provide. So the residents of the demolition of the legality expressed doubts that the Bureau issued a demolition permit in violation of relevant state policies, laws and regulations.
May 13, 2008, Ho Cheung method 11 relocatees filed administrative proceedings Xiaoshan District People's Court to nullify the demolition permit.
May 30, 2008, the Court of Xiaoshan District Construction Bureau to provide a basis for the demolition act. But residents have found that there is a big difference between the various approvals identified land area. Xiaoshan District Development and Reform Bureau documented project is 210 acres, according to the construction land planning permit is 172.2 acres, Zhejiang Provincial People's Government approved only 117.342 acres of land acquisition, demolition plans and compensation programs are 172.2 acres.
Construction of the residents of the evidence provided by the Bureau raised the question that the demolition permit related content does not fill an area is not real, is a sub-demolition permit law. And the lack of construction land planning permit construction project approval documents, attachments and drawings, incompatible land area and the demolition permit.
October 13, 2008, Xiaoshan District People's Court hearing of the case and make a judgment on 16 October. The court held that the evidence provided by the demolition of the form there were irregularities, incompleteness exist between content and demolition party in the performance of issuing demolition permits statutory duties,hogan outlet online, there are flaws in the program. But at the deficiencies without prejudice to the legitimate interests of the demolition party, he dismissed the claims of the demolition party.
July 21, 2009, appeal to the relocatees the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court.
Its attorney Yuan Yu to present, in this case, there is a significant problem behavior demolition permit issued.
"Zhejiang Urban Housing Demolition Management Regulations" does not specify which department issued the demolition permit, but said the responsibility of housing the city or county housing demolition management department. The past 10 years, Yuan Yu to agents in Hangzhou, a lot of land acquisition cases, the legal basis applicable is "Hangzhou expropriation of collective land Housing Demolition Management Regulations", Xiaoshan District has also developed a "Xiaoshan District requisitioned collective land Housing Demolition Management Implementation Measures" Both regulations are clearly defined, collective land housing demolition competent authority of the department of land. Therefore, Yuan Yu to think that the house demolition permit plum floor city reconstruction project was issued by the Construction Bureau of Xiaoshan District, this lack of legal basis.
September 16, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the application for reconsideration relocatees have been proposed by his lawyer for the problem raised by the district government.
Yuan Yu to lawyers in the opinion, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court shall not suspend the lawsuit, a decision can be revoked demolition permit. However,http://bbs.ysrxw.com/thread-1460580-1-1.html, the suspension of the proceedings, after all, be able to create the conditions for coordination to solve. Thus,http://bbs.ybjd.gov.cn/boke.asp?bgfoip4o19.showtopic.77742.html, 11 relocatees have been looking forward to.
Complaints from residents suffered cold treatment court sentenced the government assumed responsibility
However, the city reconstruction project has not been stopped proceedings, on the contrary has entered the piling construction phase. Piling noise and vibration caused by a serious impact on the daily lives of the relocatees.
May 4, 2009, residents to the Xiaoshan District Urban Administrative and Law Enforcement Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Urban Management Bureau) complaint, requires time to stop the illegal construction demolition party's behavior. May 12, ChengGuanJu answer: first pile construction Xiaoshan District Construction Bureau agreed.
Relocatees believe that the answer is no factual or legal basis. Moreover,http://www.dayoubbs.com/thread-2611041-1-1.html, even in Xiaoshan District Construction Bureau agreed to the construction, the construction is illegal, it should be stopped by law. May 22, Dong Ho, Wu Shui-Chao, Huang root three evicted Xiaoshan District Urban Management Bureau representative fails to perform statutory duties on the grounds, Xiaoshan District People's Government to make the application for reconsideration.
Xiaoshan District People's Government after receiving the review material on May 31 issued a notice on behalf of the three evicted required to provide proof of its claim had Xiaoshan District Urban Management Bureau to perform its statutory duties, but the council does not fulfill the material, overdue material as a waiver of application for administrative reconsideration.
Ho Dong and others believe that by understanding that the project did not get approval of the EIA, construction project planning permit and construction permits, construction is illegal. Investigate and deal with illegal construction behavior,louboutin prezzi, according to the Department of powers should fulfill their statutory duties, without relocatees apply provided when a request for reconsideration of its "Building on Plum Village Improvement Project petitions replies," is enough to prove the Xiaoshan District Urban Management Bureau is aware of illegal behavior exists. Thus, they ignored the notice handed material. Thereafter, Xiaoshan District People's Government did not make a decision.
August 13, 2009,basket nike air max, Mr. Ho and the other two evicted representative Xiaoshan district government delays the performance of duties of the Administrative Review Law given by appeal to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court.
October 16, 2009, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court hearing of the case. October 19, Court of Final Appeal ruled that in the case of Mr. Ho and the others when relevant evidence has been submitted for reconsideration, Xiaoshan district government requested any inappropriate behavior of other materials, are not fulfilling their statutory duties of administrative reconsideration. Court: Xiaoshan District People's Government ordered the defendant to the date of entry into force of this decision within 60 days, for the plaintiff Ho Dong and other administrative reconsideration, administrative reconsideration perform their statutory duties.
Relocation disputes public security police do not deal with the court finds that omission
Because they do not fit the demolition, 11 relocatees think they have been varying degrees of retaliation, air conditioning unit, cable TV line, telephone outside, outside lighting,http://www.zxs168.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=18716, electricity, water pipes, cars,nike uomo, windows, mahjong, bathroom equipment, etc., often by unidentified people destroyed.
April 20, 2009, 22, or even on a door evicted twice it was splashed on the fecal matter. Residents who has more than ten times to the police the police, but to no results.
Because some residents refused to demolition, building community clubs once water and electricity, the residents had to think of ways to take power. April 1, 2008, 0900, Plum F, Huai moderate community policing team members in the process of dismantling the lamp residents secretly installed, because residents Wu Miao Quan taking pictures of the process, the two sides dispute. Wu Miao Quan damage the camera falling on the ground on both sides pull process. Wu Miao Quan that the camera system is Huai moderate intentionally break, made to Hangzhou Public Security Bureau Xiaoshan District branch of the police.
9:33 the same day, the Hangzhou Xiaoshan District branch of the Public Security Bureau patrol car to reach the scene,http://211.86.128.2/gjjl/Review.asp?NewsID=595, and to be placed on file, determine the cause of action as intentional damage to property. Hangzhou Xiaoshan District branch of the Public Security Bureau on the same day to ask the relevant personnel investigation, but was unable to determine the cause of damage to the circumstances of the camera.
November 16, 2008, Wu Miao Quan to Hangzhou Xiaoshan District Public Security Bureau complaint,tiffany outlet, ask the Council to Huai medium human violations according to applicable laws, but has no results.
May 11, 2009, Wu Miao Quan sued Xiaoshan District People's Court, requesting the court to order the Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou City Public Security Bureau to perform their duties.
Xiaoshan District People's Court held that the Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou Public Security Bureau to fulfill the statutory duties; the council can not be closed within the statutory period, was due to the limited clues to solve due, does not violate the relevant provisions of the judgment dismissed Wu Miao Quan.
Wu Miao Quan first instance verdict, then filed an appeal.
Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court in the second instance that, Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou Public Security Bureau on the case the appropriate investigative procedures have been fulfilled, the public security organs should be dealt with according to different situations. But Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou Public Security Bureau in the elements making process has basically met the conditions, for a period not exceeding the statutory investigators made according to the law, there are clearly inappropriate lazy duties,http://www.chrisadamsperfumes.com/index.php?item/create_form/1, plaintiff fails to perform its statutory duties established.
October 13, 2009, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Final Appeal ruling in Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou Public Security Bureau make a decision within 60 days from the date of entry into force of the decision.
Government inaction in the demolition of disputes, the court has the judgment against Public Security Bureau and the district government, caused a big stir in the region.
Yuan Yu to lawyers told reporters in land acquisition cases, the executive loses fewer cases, resulting in sharp contradiction of relocatees have to choose the petition. Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court made the two judgments, make relocatees have tasted the sweetness of rational rights.
Yuan Yu, a hope both cases able to open a good head, causing the government enough attention, so that the dispute can be resolved according to the law the demolition, reduce or eliminate unnecessary petition. |
|
發表於 2015-7-2 17:13:11
收藏