Research On Legal Matters Of Houses With Limited Property Right

Since the State Council and its ministries and commissions repeatedly dispatched the notice of prohibiting urban residents to buy the houses with limited property right(HLPR), which has gradually entered the public eye and become the focus of all segments of society, meanwhile, led to a large number of studies in view of HLPR. The study of HLPR has not only the theoretical guidance value, but also a strong practical significance.In the current collective land right system, farmers can only obtain very little land compensation during the land acquisition process, and in the current real estate system, due to high prices, the housing needs of the medium and low-income households of urban residents could not be met. However, the existence of HLPR has, not only solve the housing problem of the medium and low-income households of urban residents, but also help the farmers to get the land value-added benefits and increase their’income. Although the exploitation and construction of HLPR has violated the current national policy, in a sense, the existence of HLPR has certain rationality. Therefore, different treatment recommendations guided by Marxist dialectical materialism on a variety of different HLPR have been introduced in this thesis.HLPR is not a legal concept, but a habitual saying which formed in people’s practice. HLPR refers to houses that were constructed on rural collective land by township government and the village committee that enjoy the collective ownership of land or through cooperation with real estate developers, after which houses would be soled to non-collective economic organizations members. Usually, house buyers can only get the "house property card" provided by the village committee.The first part of this thesis presents some basic conceptions about HLPR, which include a brief introduction of the concept, characteristics, classi-fication and validity of contract about HLPR with the purpose of enabling the readers to have a preliminary understanding of HLPR. The second part makes an introduction of the generation of HLPR which may have certain contingency, while the most fundamental course of its development into today’s scale, are apart from the market and the government, is the inequality of the peasants’collective ownership and the absence of collective construction land transfer system. In China, the state enjoys the use of state-owned land as well as the right to requisite the collective land in order to achieve the public interest. There is an absent subject in collective land ownership and obscure land property right, which has not yet been given a definitive answer. Furthermore, to convert collective land to land for construction purpose in the market must go through the collection of the country.Part three addresses that HLPR, in essence, focuses on the allocation of the "land" value-added benefits rather than the houses itself. In this part, through the analysis of the relevant stakeholders of HLPR and interests of the contents of the premise, as well as the discourse about the benefit gambling between the various stakeholders, the author pointed out that there is irrationality in the current land value-added interests’distribution mechanism.Part four provides several targeted recommendations for the regulation of HLPR from mainly three aspects including the theory, the judicial and legislative regulation. For the existing HLPR, it is necessary to adhere to the principle of classification-"people-oriented, social harmony," and treat them separately. In judicial practice, it is unwise confining to the existing national policies and making a judgment that all the HLPR contracts for the sale are dull and void. However, the fundamental resolution to the HLPR issues is to standardize the HLPR in the form of legislation, namely, give rights to the real collective land ownership and set up a transfer system of collective construction land-use right.