Feng Zhenghu: An Invalid Homestead Certificate and Thirty Years of Dispossessed Farmers in Xinzhuang, Shanghai

On the prosperous map of Minhang, Shanghai， Xinzhuang Industrial Zone is a fertile land flowing with money and opportunity。 But beneath its foundations， lies a silent history spanning thirty years。

This is a story about land、 law and waiting。

The protagonists are 41 landless farmers with an average age of over 70。 In their hands, they hold the strongest evidence——the Homestead Use Certificates issued by the Shanghai County People’s Government in 1991， yet over the past thirty years， these red certificates have been like wastepaper， unable to be exchanged for even a single square metre of the land that belongs to them。

Today， I want to tell their story， as well as about the final legal battle they are waging。

I、The Disappeared Village and the “Three-No” Land Expropriation

Looking back to 1995。 That year， development and construction of Xinzhuang Industrial Zone began。 For Huang Yaonian and his neighbours， it was the beginning of a nightmare。

There was no lawful land-expropriation approval， no expropriation announcement was posted， and no hearing was held。 Bulldozers entered the village， and the relocation team brought verbal notices。 In an era when awareness of the rule of law was still weak， the ancestral homes of 48 households were razed to the ground。

According to data in the application for supervision of administrative litigation submitted to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate， this was a shocking unequal exchange：

●  Lost： 16,006.87 square metres of lawful homesteads and private homes。

●  Received： 6,714.65 square metres of resettlement housing。

●  Difference： Nearly 16,000 square metres of property vanished into thin air， with direct economic losses reaching 194 million yuan based on current market value。

This was not merely demolition and relocation， but something more like plunder。

II、The Long Detour： From Petitioning to Litigation

Over the following 26 years， this group of landless farmers made the most instinctive choice in China-style rights defence——petitioning。

They travelled repeatedly between petition offices and court petition offices at the township、 district and municipal levels。 They submitted sacks of materials， but received countless instances of buck-passing in the form of “referral for processing”。 What they did not know was that， in the logic of the law， petitioning is a dead end。 It has no coercive force and is not final。

It was not until 2021， on the advice of legal expert Feng Zhenghu， that they finally came to realise： they had to turn “petitioning” into “litigation”。

In December 2021， Huang Yaonian represented everyone in sending an Application for the Performance of Duties to the Minhang District Government， requesting that the government perform its statutory duty to protect property rights and resolve the outstanding compensation issue。

This was a qualitative leap。 They were no longer “petitioners” begging for sympathy， but “citizens” asserting their rights under the Constitution and the Land Administration Law。

However， the Minhang District Government chose the most arrogant response——silence。

The statutory two-month deadline passed， with no response。

A year passed， still with no response。

III、The Dawn of the New Law and the Wall of the Old Law

On January 1, 2024， the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law officially came into force。 For Huang Yaonian and the others， this should have been a ray of light。

Article 11 of the new law clearly stipulates that where an administrative organ “fails to respond” to an application for protection of property rights and other lawful rights and interests， the matter falls within the scope of administrative reconsideration。

It was practically a provision tailor-made for their case。 Thus， on January 22, 2024， just three weeks after the new law took effect， they filed for administrative reconsideration with the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government。

The result was chilling。 The Shanghai municipal government issued a Decision Not to Accept the Application within just seven days。 The reason was still the same tired excuse： this was a “petitioning matter” and did not fall within the scope of reconsideration。

More astonishingly， the decision even cited old cases from 2018 and 2021 as its basis， completely disregarding the fact that the new law had taken effect in 2024。 It was as if a new criminal law were already in force， yet a judge insisted on adjudicating a case under the laws of the Qing dynasty。

They then placed their hopes in the courts。

● First instance： The Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court ruled to dismiss the case。

● Second instance： The Shanghai High People’s Court ruled to dismiss the case。

● Retrial： The Supreme People’s Court ruled to dismiss the case。

The reasons given by the three levels of courts were strikingly consistent： “petitioning matter”、 “outside the scope of cases accepted”、 and “no interest in bringing an action”。

A perfect closed loop had formed：

● Go to the government？ The government does not respond。

● Seek reconsideration？   The reconsideration bureau says it is petitioning and refuses to accept it。

● Bring a lawsuit？   The court says it is petitioning and refuses to docket it。

This is not merely an error in applying the law， but also a systematic obstruction of citizens’ right to bring lawsuits。The courts appear to have developed a kind of inertial thinking： as long as you have petitioned before， any legal claim you raise is automatically degraded into “petitioning”， forever unable to enter the proper track of judicial proceedings。

IV、The Final Line of Defence： Challenging the Supreme People’s Procuratorate

Huang Yaonian and his old neighbours had already been pushed to the edge of the cliff。

After nearly exhausting the usual avenues of judicial relief， the only card left in their hands was administrative litigation supervision——their final trump card。

In February 2026， a weighty Application for Supervision of Administrative Litigation was sent to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate。 Between the lines， the 41 landless farmers pointed directly to longstanding problems in judicial practice and delivered four heavy blows：

1. Failure to docket a case and the arbitrary deprivation of the right to sue： The new law had long since expressly included “failure to respond” within the scope of administrative reconsideration， so why were the courts still trapped in the thinking of the old law and closing the door to ordinary people’s lawful rights defence？

2. Law changes with the enactment of new law; how can the new law submit to old precedents： Faced with rights granted by the new law， local governments instead cited precedents from cases several years earlier in their defence， a position difficult to reconcile with either legal principle or logic。

3. How can performance of duties in accordance with the law be conflated with petitioning： Requests for confirmation of rights and compensation based on lawful Homestead Certificates are clearly defined legal acts； an individual’s statutory standing to sue must not be stripped away merely because they have petitioned in the past。

4. When procedure is rendered meaningless, where is judicial justice： During the year-long litigation process， there was not a single substantive hearing and not one examination of evidence， with the case hastily closed on the basis of a single ruling， leaving procedural justice nowhere to be found。

After receiving the materials， the Supreme People’s Procuratorate transferred them to the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate for handling under jurisdictional procedures。 Subsequently， Huang Yaonian、 Zhu Zhengguo and Wang Anming formally submitted the application for supervision on behalf of the 41 dispossessed farmers from Xinzhuang。 On June 5, 2026， the Shanghai Procuratorate issued the Notice of Acceptance “Hu Jian Kongshen Xingjian [2026] No. 60”， confirming that the case met the requirements and formally opening it for review。

Opening a case for review is only the first step in breaking the ice， and the real test has just begun。 Faced with this tangled wall of resistance from the Supreme People’s Court， courts at all levels and the municipal and district governments， will prosecutorial supervision correct the error in accordance with the law and request a protest， or will it once again fall into helpless “procedural circulation”？

The ultimate battle of these landless farmers may ultimately return once again to the desk of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate。

V、Conclusion：Not Only for the Land, but Also for Faith in the Rule of Law

As I write these words， I keep asking myself： what exactly are these 41 white-haired elderly people fighting for？

Viewed narrowly， this is about reclaiming their 194 million yuan in lawful property。 For any ordinary family， this is a huge sum of money； for these villagers trapped in resettlement housing and growing old， it represents the work of their entire lives and their dignity。

But viewed broadly， this protracted battle is subjecting the substance of our rule of law to a severe test：

If a lawful property-rights certificate stamped and issued by the government can be casually reduced to nothing by an administrative organ after weathering thirty years of change；

If a legal provision newly revised through the legislative process can be easily rendered ineffective and selectively ignored in specific administrative and judicial practice；

If the words “petitioning” can repeatedly become the “universal shield” for relevant departments to evade their statutory duties and deprive citizens of their right to sue；

——then how can the authority of the rule of law be established？ And where should the dignity of the law reside？

Huang Yaonian turned exactly 70 this year。 Along this long and winding road of defending their rights， seven of the original 48 claimants have already died with regret during the long wait。 They ultimately did not live to see the day justice broke through the soil。

But those who remain alive still refuse to bow their heads。

This application for supervision submitted to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the municipal procuratorate has long transcended the meaning of an ordinary legal document。It is a weighty historical memorandum——one page records the arrogance and inertia of public power， while the other is filled with the tenacity and resilience of ordinary citizens defending their rights。

We hope that the Supreme People’s Procuratorate will hear this urgent cry from the banks of the Huangpu River。 This is not only to give these 41 elderly people in the twilight of their lives a just accounting， but also to enable every ordinary citizen holding lawful documents and living on this land to continue to believe from the bottom of their heart： the law possesses the ultimate power to uphold justice。

Author： Feng Zhenghu

August 22, 2026