Click the blue word above to follow me! According to the provisions of China’s urban and rural planning law, it is the jurisdiction of the local planning administrative department to determine whether the house involved is an illegal building, and the court has no right to determine whether the house involved is an illegal building directly
.
The appeal that the original trial does not support also has a legal basis
.
They still transfer the house and the leased land when they know it is illegal, and claim that the contract is invalid on this basis, which is a malicious defense
.
v
.
Source: China judicial documents website, (2020) Lu minshen No
.
However, the collective land occupied by the houses involved obviously does not belong to farmers The scope of homestead, so the claim of the parties lack of legal basis
.
Therefore, the original judgment holds that the house sales contract concluded by both parties involved in the case is valid and has legal basis
.
Shen Qiuping and Wang Yumei confirming the invalidity of the contract
.
The parties claim that the house sales contract and land lease contract involved in the case have illegal acts, which should be deemed invalid
.
According to the provisions of the land management law, collective land is divided into agricultural land, construction land and unused land
.
The parties themselves are the seller of the house and the lessee of the land involved in the case
.
The current law restricts the transfer of aboveground buildings among members of collective organizations, which generally refers to the houses built on Farmers’ homestead, and does not restrict the transfer of all houses built on collective land
.
2917 civil ruling case of Shan county Sanhe Garment Co., Ltd
.
Although the parties claim that the house involved is an illegal building, they do not provide the conclusion made by the local planning administrative department, and the sale of the house involved is in conformity with the law Meanwhile, there are no other invalid situations stipulated in Article 52 of the contract law (now it should be the invalid situation stipulated in the civil code)
.
