Feng Zhenghu: A Case That Asks Only “Why Was There No Answer?”: The Case of 55 Landless Farmers in Pudong Applying for the Performance of Official Duties (Series Report on Landless Farmers’ Lawful Rights Protection in China, Part Eight)

The People’s Government of Pudong New Area, Shanghai, received applications lawfully submitted by 55 landless farmers requesting the performance of official duties，but neither accepted nor rejected them，simply remaining silent for years。In response to this “administrative silence”，the applicants exhausted administrative reconsideration、first-instance and second-instance proceedings、and retrial proceedings before the Supreme People’s Court，only to become trapped in a procedural deadlock in which petitioning and litigation referred matters back and forth、while “internal supervision”and “repeated processing”successively closed every door。The 34-year dispute over land requisition compensation is merely the historical backdrop，what this case truly tests is a bottom line of a modern rule-of-law system：when an administrative organ completely “turns a deaf ear”to a citizen’s application，can this failure to act be challenged in court？Within a formally complete judicial process，do citizens ultimately have the right to demand that the state speak？

I、A Case That Asks Only "Why Was There No Answer?"

On December 13，2021，the People’s Government of Pudong New Area，Shanghai，received a document——the 《Application Requesting the Pudong New Area Government to Perform Its Duty to Protect Property Rights》。The applicants were 55 residents including Shi Kehua，most of them elderly landless farmers。

In the years that followed，this application received no written response whatsoever。

This is the core of the entire dispute。It sounds simple to the point of being almost tedious：a government at the primary level received citizens’ applications requesting the performance of official duties，but neither accepted nor rejected them，much less explained the reasons，simply remaining silent。It was precisely over this silence that the 55 applicants completed every statutory procedure of administrative reconsideration、first-instance proceedings、second-instance proceedings、and retrial，ultimately submitting an application for supervision of administrative litigation to the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate，requesting that it lawfully file a protest or issue a procuratorial recommendation for retrial。

It is particularly important to clarify that what the applicants in this case requested to be reviewed was not whether the amount of compensation more than 30 years ago was correct。They narrowed their request to a purely procedural question：was it unlawful for the administrative organ to fail to respond to citizens’ applications for an extended period；could this failure to act be subject to reconsideration and could it be challenged in court。

This distinction is crucial。It is the key to understanding the entire case，and also the point that the applicants believe organs at every level have consistently failed to recognize。

II、The 34-Year Historical Backdrop

The origins of the dispute go back to 1992。

That year，the Waigaoqiao Free Trade Zone was developed and constructed，and the homesteads and houses in the applicants’ villages were expropriated。According to the policies and commitments in force at the time，the expropriated farmers were supposed to receive corresponding resettlement compensation。However，according to the applicants’ account，this compensation left enormous problems that have still not been lawfully resolved。

Thirty-four years。That is long enough for farmers who were in their prime at the time to become white-haired elderly people，and long enough for some not to live to see an outcome。

This history forms the emotional backdrop of the case，but its legal position is merely that of “background”。The applicants understand clearly that the substantive compensation standards from more than 30 years ago would have long been difficult to overturn directly through ordinary litigation。They therefore chose a more cautious path：first requesting that the government perform its statutory duty to protect property rights and issue a written disposition——even an unfavorable response would be better than complete silence。Only with a response is there an object that can be reviewed；only with an object is there a possibility of relief。

What they wanted first was a door that could be knocked on。

III、Those Who Pointed the Way and Those Who Closed the Door

What happened next constitutes the most striking part of the application。The applicants characterize it as a “procedural deadlock”，supported by a set of mutually contradictory official documents。

Step One，the courts pointed toward petitioning。During the early stages of their efforts to protect their rights，the applicants were guided to reflect their concerns through petitioning channels。

Step Two，the petitioning organs pointed toward litigation。 The three levels of petitioning organs successively issued written handling opinions：the People’s Government of Gaoqiao Town（December 26，2022）、the People’s Government of Pudong New Area（April 26，2023）、and the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government（May 19，2023）。The three opinions were consistent in their position and clear in their wording：the matters reported by the applicants should be resolved through litigation。

This was a crucial official determination。The petitioning organs confirmed in writing that the dispute did not fall within the scope of matters accepted through petitioning and should be brought within the rule-of-law track。In other words，the petitioning door was actively closed by the authorities，which pointed out the direction to take instead。

Step Three，the reconsideration organ closed the door on the grounds of “petitioning”。 The newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law came into force in September 2023，explicitly including an administrative organ’s failure to perform its statutory duties or respond among matters subject to administrative reconsideration。Following the guidance of the petitioning organs and the provisions of the new law，the applicants applied for administrative reconsideration。On January 26，2024，the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government issued the 《Decision on Non-Acceptance of the Application for Administrative Reconsideration》（Hu Fu Fu Zi 〔2024〕No. 204），citing among its reasons that the matter involved petitioning and in substance concerned a request for a superior organ to exercise internal hierarchical supervision over a subordinate organ。

Step Four，the courts rejected the case on the grounds of the reconsideration decision and the petitioning disposition。 The Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court（（2024）Hu 03 Xing Chu No. 82 ruling）and the Shanghai High People’s Court（（2025）Hu Xing Zhong No. 70 ruling）successively rejected the case。

Step Five，the Supreme People’s Court issued a final rejection on the grounds of “repeated processing.” The ruling in（2025）Supreme People’s Court Administrative Petition No. 9077 held that the applicants had repeatedly applied for compensation and administrative reconsideration，and that the municipal government’s decision not to accept the application constituted a “repeated processing action rejecting the parties’ appeal against an administrative act”，which，under Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the judicial interpretation of the Administrative Litigation Law，did not fall within the scope of cases accepted for administrative litigation。

Thus the loop was complete：litigation directed the matter toward petitioning，petitioning directed it back to litigation in writing，reconsideration shut the door on the grounds that it “involved petitioning”，the courts upheld the rejection because of the existence of the reconsideration and petitioning proceedings，and the Supreme People’s Court completely closed the door on the grounds of “repeated processing.”

The applicants point out that within this loop，the objective，verifiable and undisputed fact that “the Pudong New Area government has never responded to the application for the performance of official duties submitted on December 13，2021”has never entered the substantive review of any state organ at any level。Not even once。

IV、The Four Legal Errors Alleged by the Applicants

The application’s arguments do not remain at the level of emotion，but instead identify one by one the problems in the application of law in the documents issued by the organs at every level。Whether these arguments are valid must be reviewed and determined by the procuratorial organs，but their legal reasoning is clear。

1. The failure to reconcile the old and new laws

The new Administrative Reconsideration Law explicitly includes “failure to respond” within the scope of reconsideration，a channel specifically established by the legislature to address administrative silence。The decision not to accept the application，however，cited Notices issued in 2018 and 2021 under the old law。The applicants argue that using conclusions formed under the framework of the old law to negate rights expressly granted by the new law violates the most basic rule of legal application—“the new law takes precedence over the old law”—and renders the institutional innovation of the new law meaningless in individual cases。

2. The characterization of “internal supervision”confuses internal and external administrative acts

The documents issued at every level all hold that the applicants were in substance asking a superior government to exercise internal hierarchical supervision over a subordinate government and that the matter therefore could not be litigated。

The applicants’ rebuttal is forceful：this confuses “citizens’ right to make an external request”with “the internal means an administrative organ may use to fulfill that request.”When citizens apply to an administrative organ for the protection of their property rights，that organ has an external procedural duty to accept the application，investigate it，and provide a written response within the statutory time limit；how it internally urges a subordinate body or coordinates among departments is a manner of performing its duties and does not change the external nature of the application itself。

The analogy in the application is straightforward：when citizens report illegal business operations and request that market regulators investigate and handle them，the department of course must allocate personnel and coordinate among divisions internally，but no one would therefore consider the citizens’ report an “internal act”and conclude that it could not be litigated。

3. The object of review was misplaced

The subject of the first- and second-instance proceedings should have been the single question of “whether the reconsideration organ’s decision not to accept the application was lawful.”The applicants argue，however，that the courts’ review logic penetrated the substantive content of the original application for the performance of official duties，and directly determined that the decision not to accept the application was correct on the grounds that “the application involved substantive compensation,”thereby bypassing the true core issue——whether the reconsideration organ should have applied the new law。Review of procedural legality was replaced by a substantive determination，which amounted to eliminating the review itself。

4. The “repeated processing”provision was interpreted too broadly

This is what the applicants consider the most fatal point。

The institutional purpose of the exclusion for “repeated processing actions”is clear：to prevent parties from engaging in endless litigation over the same administrative act under the same legal basis and thereby preserve the stability of administrative decisions。Its application has strict prerequisites——it must concern the same act and the same basis，and there must have been substantive handling previously。

In this case，the applicants argue that the object of review is a new failure to act that has continued since 2021，the legal basis is the new Administrative Reconsideration Law that came into force in 2023，and the nature of the claim is procedural（a request for a response）rather than the substantive claim under the framework of the old law（a request for compensation）。Equating the two amounts to declaring that once a party has petitioned about a relevant matter in the past，any new silence by an administrative organ thereafter need not be reviewed again。That does not prevent vexatious litigation，but instead provides administrative inaction with permanent immunity。

5. Insufficient reasoning and the responsibility to ensure uniform application of the law

The applicants also point out that the retrial ruling failed to substantively respond to a series of core issues they had repeatedly raised，including the reconciliation of the old and new laws，the temporal effect of continuing inaction，the independent justiciability of procedural claims，and the boundary between petitioning and reconsideration。Ensuring uniform standards for the application of law is precisely one of the core functions of the highest judicial organ。

V、Request for Procuratorial Supervision

For the reasons above，the 55 applicants，in accordance with Articles 91 and 93 of the Administrative Litigation Law and Article 21 of the People’s Procuratorates Organic Law，request that the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate：

Lawfully file a protest or issue a procuratorial recommendation for retrial，annul the relevant rulings；order the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government to accept the application for administrative reconsideration and issue a reconsideration decision concerning the continuing failure of the Pudong New Area government to act；or order the Pudong New Area government to issue a written disposition and response to the application for the performance of official duties submitted on December 13，2021 within the statutory time limit。

At the same time，with regard to the issues in this case involving general application of the law，such as “the failure to reconcile the old and new laws”，“the systematic disregard of procedural rights”and “the abuse of the repeated-processing provision”，submit a procuratorial recommendation to the Supreme People’s Court to urge the unification of standards for the application of law。

VI、Why This Case Deserves Attention

Setting aside the outcome of this individual case，it touches on an institutional gap of broad significance。

1. Administrative silence is the most difficult administrative act to challenge。 An erroneous decision at least leaves behind a document that can be reviewed；silence leaves nothing behind。That is precisely why the legislature specifically opened a channel for “failure to respond”in the new Administrative Reconsideration Law。Whether this channel can truly be opened in individual cases directly tests the practical effectiveness of the legal amendment。

2. Procedural rights need to be treated independently。 A request for a response and a request for compensation are two different things。If every procedural request can be “penetrated”and recharacterized as a substantive claim and thereby excluded，procedural rights lose their independent meaning。

3. The “repeated processing”provision should not become an all-purpose shield。 This provision was established as an exception for the sake of efficiency，but once an exception is expanded without limit，it will swallow the principle itself。

4. “Where there is a right，there must be a remedy”is the rule-of-law system’s bottom-line commitment。 A procedural system that can be fully traversed yet can never reach substantive review ultimately undermines this commitment precisely through its formal completeness。

Thirty-four years have passed，and what the 55 applicants truly want may not be a lawsuit they are certain to win，but an answer——any answer。Even “not supported”would be enough，as long as it is written、reasoned、and open to review。

In a rule-of-law society，citizens have the right to demand that the state speak. This demand itself should not require litigation all the way to the Supreme People’s Court。

Author：Feng Zhenghu September 17，2026