Feng Zhenghu: An Analysis of the Application for Supervision of Administrative Litigation by Farmers Who Lost Their Land in Xinzhuang, Shanghai (Series Report Seven on Land-Lost Farmers’ Legal Rights Protection in China)

The application for supervision of administrative litigation submitted by 41 farmers who lost their land in the Xinzhuang Industrial Zone of Shanghai’s Minhang District appears on the surface to be a protracted dispute over property rights arising from land expropriation and demolition， but in substance raises a more broadly applicable rule-of-law question： when citizens ask administrative organs to perform their statutory duties in response to specific harm to their rights， can such requests simply be classified as “petitions and complaints”， and consequently be left to hover outside the stages of administrative reconsideration and litigation？

According to materials submitted by the applicants， the dispute can be traced back to land expropriation and demolition between 1995 and 2001。 The applicants believe that their housing land and related property rights were not adequately protected during the expropriation、 demolition and resettlement process， and claim losses of approximately 194 million yuan。 In 2021， the 41 applicants submitted applications to the relevant district government requesting the lawful protection、 confirmation and handling of their related property rights； after receiving no substantive response， they applied to the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government for administrative reconsideration after the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law came into force in 2024。 Thereafter， the case went through first-instance、 second-instance and retrial proceedings， none of which proceeded to substantive examination of the property losses or whether the administrative organs were required to perform their duties。

What the application criticizes is precisely this predicament of “completing the procedures without obtaining a hearing”： the district government did not issue a substantive response to the application to perform its duties， the administrative reconsideration authority decided not to accept the application， and the courts dismissed the case on the grounds that it did not fall within the scope of cases accepted for administrative litigation。 Petitions and complaints、 administrative reconsideration and litigation originally each have their own functional boundaries。 If an application to perform duties that has a clearly identified object of the request、 legal basis and rights claim is uniformly categorized as a “petition and complaint matter”， the remedy of rights may fall into a gap where it is “under the care of no one”。

As indicated by the applicants’ arguments， the case presents at least three legal issues worthy of examination through procuratorial supervision。

First， the application of the new law and the issue of procedural succession。 The applicants argue that both the application for administrative reconsideration and the subsequent litigation took place after the new Administrative Reconsideration Law came into force on January 1， 2024。 Article 11 of the law brings requests for administrative organs to perform their statutory duties、 as well as situations in which administrative organs refuse to perform or fail to perform them in accordance with the law， within the scope of administrative reconsideration。 If the request at issue is indeed a statutory application to perform duties rather than merely the expression of an opinion， it should first be assessed in accordance with the relief framework of the new law， rather than being handled solely according to the old approach。

Second， the distinction in nature between an “application to perform duties” and a “petition and complaint matter”。 The petition system serves the functions of communicating public sentiment、 reflecting problems and promoting coordination； administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation focus on providing remedies for rights in specific administrative disputes。 The two cannot substitute for each other。 The applicants claim that their requests were made on the basis of rules concerning land administration and the protection of civil rights， accompanied by materials concerning title、 resettlement and losses， and directed at the duty to act of a specific administrative organ。 In this regard， administrative organs and courts should examine whether the requests have a basis in statutory duties、 whether the applications are specific and whether the evidence is preliminarily sufficient， rather than categorizing them entirely as “petition and complaint matters” merely because the dispute is historically remote、 involves a relatively large number of people or contains elements of appeal in its wording。

Third， the issue of narrowly applying judicial interpretations。 The original trial judgments cited provisions in the judicial interpretation of administrative litigation stating that petition and complaint matters and internal hierarchical supervision generally do not fall within the scope of cases accepted by the courts。 The purpose of this rule is to prevent courts from intervening in purely internal management or general requests， not to automatically exclude specific requests by citizens for administrative organs to perform duties because their own property rights have been affected。 The interpretation and application of judicial interpretations should be coordinated with the new law’s orientation toward rights remedies； if the request itself may fall within the scope expressly prescribed by the new law， its nature should be clarified through adjudication rather than having a label replace an assessment。

Of course， the necessary restraint must also be maintained in assessing this case。 The claimed losses of approximately 194 million yuan、 alleged defects in the expropriation and demolition procedures and the specific scope of the administrative organs’ duties currently come mainly from the applicants’ statements and evidence； the relationship between the historical expropriation and demolition actions and the new law of 2024、 whether there are issues concerning limitation periods or justiciability、 and how the losses should be determined all require confirmation through proceedings involving the administrative organs’ defenses、 the examination of evidence and review by the court。 The significance of supervision does not lie in confirming in advance the conclusion on substantive compensation， but in examining whether an effective judgment prematurely closed the door to a hearing because of improper application of the law or an erroneous determination of whether the case should be accepted。

Therefore， the aspect of this application for supervision that merits the greatest attention is not treating procuratorial supervision as the “last petition and complaint”， but asking it to perform a corrective and connective function： to review in accordance with the law effective judgments that may have incorrectly excluded the application of the new law or confused petitions and complaints with applications to perform duties； and where necessary， promote a retrial through a protest or procuratorial recommendation， so that the dispute can return to a track on which facts can be ascertained、 laws applied and rights claims addressed。

For the 41 families， this concerns a remedy for property rights delayed for many years； for the rule of law in public affairs， it concerns whether a new law expanding the scope of administrative reconsideration can truly become an accessible channel for rights。 Procedure should not be a wall used to refuse adjudication， but a path leading to substantive justice。 Only by allowing requests that should be reviewed to receive review， and reasons that should be explained to be explained， can the rule of law avoid stopping at a piece of paper stating “application not accepted”。

Author: Feng Zhenghu  September 5， 2026