Demolition behavior was sentenced to illegal Lanzhou Anning City Management Compensation 1 million 3 luonv

Convicted of the illegal demolition behavior of Lanzhou peace inspectors compensation 1 million 330 thousand – Beijing China Gansu news network August 30th according to the Lanzhou morning news reports (reporter Dong Zibiao) the houses were in Anning District of Lanzhou City Administration Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Anning District Law Enforcement Bureau) will be removed, household Han Anning District Law Enforcement Bureau to court. The court decided that the administrative act is illegal, the administrative penalty decision is invalid. Subsequently, the request of the court to pay compensation. In August 29th, the reporter was informed that the case of the Lanzhou intermediate people’s court in August 4th: the final judgment within 30 days of the plaintiff’s Han 133.013224 million yuan and interest the Anning District Law Enforcement Bureau of the effective date of the decision. Chengguan District Court, the plaintiff Han Ning to Lanzhou city in 1984 district urban and rural construction and Environmental Protection Bureau of land application, by the Bureau in March 10, 1985 to build business premises (the original Lanzhou Anning District qiujiawan No. 19). In May 5, 2012, Anning District Law Enforcement Bureau made the decision, that Mr. Han built housing for illegal construction, ordered the parties receiving the decision to dismantle the illegal construction within two days from the date, and on the same day the punishment decision posted on the defendant building door and in May 8th the housing demolition. Another identified, in August 14, 2013, South Korea refused to accept the decision of the administrative punishment of Anning District Urban Management Law Enforcement Bureau, filed an administrative lawsuit to the court. Chengguan District of Lanzhou City Court on November 12, 2013 to make administrative judgment: confirmation of administrative punishment made the Anning District Law Enforcement Bureau’s decision invalid. After that, the defendant refused to accept the appeal to the Lanzhou intermediate people’s court, the court of second instance in April 21, 2014 made the verdict, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict. After the verdict, Mr. Han in January 6, 2014 filed an administrative lawsuit in Chengguan District of Lanzhou city after the court ruling confirmed Anning District Law Enforcement Bureau of administrative acts of illegal housing demolition. Anning District Law Enforcement Bureau refused to accept the appeal, the Lanzhou intermediate people’s court ruling on November 27, 2014 rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict. Thus, the plaintiff sued the court once again asked the defendant to compensate the losses caused by the demolition behavior. Chengguan District Court that, due to urban management of Anning District Law Enforcement Bureau forced removal of the defendant Han house, has been effective judgment confirmed illegal, so the plaintiff Han has the right to compensation. Han holds Anning District of Lanzhou city urban and rural construction and Environmental Protection Bureau agreed to build the business premises of the evidence, has the responsibility and ability during the investigation of the case to verify the authenticity of the materials, but the defendant received the relevant units issued by the relevant material not found in the documents, the plaintiff is determined to build housing for illegal construction, completely ignoring the case involved with the construction of historical factors. That the defendant does not have sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff housing for illegal construction. Then the defendant should be located in the quiet area of the plaintiff Bay 19, an area of 126.02 square meters of housing compensation. The defendant did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff housing for illegal construction, Anning District Urban Management and law enforcement bureau should be located in the quiet area of the plaintiff, 19 Bay area, an area of about 126.02 square meters of housing.相关的主题文章: