Feng Zhenghu: Rule-of-law hopes for breaking the deadlock of “procedural circulation”—41 landless farmers in Shanghai’s Xinzhuang lawfully apply to the municipal procuratorate to hold a public hearing

【Introduction】 On the afternoon of August 10, 2026, an EMS express delivery carrying the earnest hopes of 41 landless farmers was sent from Shenbei Road in Shanghai’s Minhang District directly to the Seventh Procuratorial Department of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate. The package contained a weighty legal document——the Application to Hold a Hearing.

Just ten days earlier, on July 31, 2026, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s newly revised Provisions on the Hearing of Cases Examined by People’s Procuratorates were officially promulgated and took effect. Huang Yaonian, Zhu Zhengguo, Wang Anming and 38 other landless farmers from the Xinzhuang Industrial Zone in Shanghai’s Minhang District quickly followed suit, seizing the opportunity presented by the implementation of the new provisions and formally applying to the municipal procuratorate for a public hearing in accordance with the law. This is a typical case of grassroots people using the provisions of a new law and seeking substantive relief through procuratorial supervision after the introduction of these new judicial provisions.

I. Thirty years of seeking redress, trapped in the vicious cycle of “procedural circulation”

Behind this administrative procuratorial-supervision case (case number: Hu Jian Kongshen Xingjian [2026] No. 60) lies a historical dispute spanning nearly 30 years.

Looking back to around 1995, as the Xinzhuang Industrial Zone was developed and built, the homesteads and land of 41 local farming households were included in expropriation and demolition. However, because of historical problems, the relevant compensation and resettlement arrangements and the protection of property rights have long failed to be fully resolved in accordance with the law. According to the professional assessment and accounting materials submitted by the applicants, the amount of the property rights allegedly infringed and the resulting economic losses is enormous.

Seeking lawful relief, on December 13, 2021, the 41 landless farmers formally submitted an application to the Shanghai Minhang District People’s Government, requesting that it perform its statutory duty to protect their property rights in accordance with the law. However, after the district government acknowledged receipt of the application, it failed to provide a substantive response for an extended period.

Faced with the administrative inaction, the landless farmers applied to the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government for administrative reconsideration pursuant to the provision in the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China concerning “an administrative organ’s failure to perform its statutory duty to protect lawful rights and interests, including personal rights and property rights.” Unexpectedly, the municipal government decided not to accept the application; the parties then filed an administrative lawsuit with the courts in accordance with the law. From the first-instance ruling of the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court and the final ruling of the Shanghai High People’s Court to the Supreme People’s Court’s rejection of the application for retrial, the rulings of all three levels of courts failed to conduct a substantive examination of “whether the administrative organ should perform its duty to protect property rights,” instead dismissing the cases on grounds including that they “did not fall within the scope of cases accepted” or that they should be “classified as petitioning matters.”

Years of litigation left the landless farmers trapped in a typical closed loop of “application to perform duties—no response—reconsideration not accepted—lawsuit dismissed on procedural grounds,” a cycle of “procedural circulation.”

II. Keeping pace with the rule-of-law frontier: applying for a public hearing with the support of the new provisions

“The case went through the courts, but the merits of our substantive rights and wrongs were never genuinely heard in court,” said Huang Yaonian, a representative of the applicants.

On June 5, 2026, following examination, the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate formally accepted the 41 farmers’ application for supervision of their administrative litigation and issued a Notice of Acceptance (Hu Jian Kongshen Xingjian [2026] No. 60) and a Notice of Rights and Obligations. After the case entered the substantive examination stage, how to break through the limitations of written proceedings and bring the evidence and demands accumulated over many years into the open became the parties’ greatest concern.

A turning point came on July 31, 2026——the Supreme People’s Procuratorate promulgated and implemented the newly revised Provisions on the Hearing of Cases Examined by People’s Procuratorates. The provisions further strengthen the institutional force of procuratorial hearings in resolving social conflicts, promoting judicial openness and hearing the views of all sides, explicitly including cases that involve “relatively serious disputes” or “have a major social impact” within the scope of hearings.

After learning that the new provisions had taken effect, the 41 landless farmers responded quickly, comprehensively restructuring and revising the legal reasoning in their original hearing-application materials, and formally submitting a revised application on August 10. In the application, the farmers put forward two core legal grounds:

1. Full compliance with the statutory conditions for a hearing (Article 5, paragraph 1): This case involves a major property-rights dispute concerning 41 landless farming households over nearly 30 years. There are major disagreements regarding the determination of facts, the application of old and new laws, and the definition of the scope of administrative duties, and the case has a broad social impact. It fully meets the new provisions’ requirement that a hearing be held where “relatively serious disputes exist regarding the determination of facts, the application of law, or the handling of the case, or where there is a major social impact.”

2. Institutional mandatory constraint (Article 5, paragraph 2): The revised provisions on hearing work clearly state that a hearing should be held for cases involving relatively serious disputes in which the application for supervision is likely to be unsupported. The applicants particularly stressed that they earnestly requested the procuratorial organ to organize a public hearing first, in accordance with the law, before making any adverse decision.

III. Sunshine is the best antidote: A hearing is not merely a procedure, but also a vehicle for justice

In a body of evidentiary files dozens of pages thick, the applicants submitted homestead-use certificates, resettlement agreements from demolitions and expropriations over the years, mailing receipts for their applications to perform duties, and a detailed loss-accounting report. The landless farmers believe that merely circulating documents in writing would make it difficult to fully reconstruct the historical picture spanning decades and the complex trajectory of administrative actions.

Under the newly revised provisions on hearing work, once a public hearing is initiated:

· The procurator handling the case will publicly explain the facts of the case and the points in dispute;

· Representatives of the applicants will be able to state the facts in person, present the complete chain of evidence and conduct cross-examination;

· The respondent (the municipal government) and the third party (the district government) must explain on site such issues as the handling of their duties and the definition of the scope of accepted cases;

· Independent hearing officers will ask questions on key issues at the hearing, deliberate in private and express neutral opinions.

This is not only a key platform for safeguarding the parties’ rights to make statements, defend themselves and conduct cross-examination, but also an important rule-of-law barrier enabling the procuratorial organ to ascertain the objective facts, accurately apply the new Administrative Reconsideration Law and Administrative Litigation Law, and ultimately decide whether to lodge a protest or issue a procuratorial recommendation.

IV. Conclusion: Making judicial justice “visible, understandable and perceptible””

From a yellowed homestead certificate to an express-delivery waybill bearing a postmark; from a rights-defense predicament lasting decades to applying the latest judicial interpretation in accordance with the law and regulations——the rule-of-law steps taken by the 41 landless farmers of Xinzhuang demonstrate grassroots people’s reverence for the rule of law and their determination to pursue justice.

“The law does not bend to the powerful, and the measuring line does not yield to crookedness.” The vitality of the newly revised Provisions on the Hearing of Cases Examined by People’s Procuratorates lies in their implementation. Whether the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate will open the door to a public hearing in this major and difficult administrative-supervision case, promote justice through openness and resolve grievances through a hearing, allowing justice to be realized in the sunlight, is being watched closely by all sectors of society.

August 19, 2026