The Problems Of The Rural Housing Demolition And Resettlement Housing Ownership

Urbanization in rural areas causes expropriation of farmers’ houses. Farmersobtain a lot of money as compensation, meanwhile, contradictions in disputes relatedto compensation amount and resettlement housing ownership are becoming prominent.A large number of such disputes are taken to court, some of them are contentiousendlessly, which become unfavorable factors affecting family harmony and socialharmony. It has great social significance to effectively solve such dispute. Theexisting legislation on the nature of the rights to use the homestead, and therelationships between the rights to use the rural housing and the homestead are notclearly defined. Theoretically, controversial issues exist among these problems, whichmake it difficult to settle such disputes through the judicial practice.In this paper, we will discuss the nature of Rural Usufructuary of land forbuilding, the relationships between rural housing ownership and Rural Usufructuaryof land for building, the target of expropriation of rural housing, and the nature ofresettlement housing properties. It is aimed to redefine the relationships between therights to use rural housing and homestead, establishing a recognized standard ofresettlement housing ownership for rural housing.This paper argues that Rural Usufructuary of land for building and theownership of rural housing are two independent property rights. Ownership of ruralhousing itself has nothing specific, but Rural Usufructuary of land for building is aspecial kind of usufructuary.There are two targets in expropriation of rural housing. In addition to theownership of house, it also includes a special expropriation target-homestead userights. Since the homestead use rights have special social security characteristics,making the resettlement housing inherited the social security characteristics to someextent. Therefore, the traditional rural house ownership identified rural housingresettlement housing ownership identification standards are not in line with the legislative intent; it should uphold the principle of appropriate separation of premises,combined with the homestead use rights and house ownership to identify ruralhousing resettlement housing attribution.This paper includes three parts, namely, introduction, body, and conclusion. Thebody is comprised of three chapters as follows:The first chapter deals with the nature and relationships of homestead use rightsand ownership of rural housing, pointing out that the homestead use rights is notmerely a usufructuary right, but also with more important social securitycharacteristics. Analysis of the existing premises relations theory points out that the“Premises forced bundling" model is not fully applicable to the use rights for ruralhousing and homestead. On this basis, it summed up the standards of identifying ruralhousing ownership.The second chapter deals with the rural housing expropriation, compensationand resettlement. First of all, it summarizes the general theory of expropriation andcompensation, then the current national expropriation and compensation provisionsare summarized. This paper points out that the targets of rural housing expropriationinclude both home ownership and homestead use rights, and the resettlement housingis equal value exchange of both of the above.The third chapter discusses the recognized standards of resettlement housingownership for rural housing, using Shanghai as an example. Using Shanghai as anexample, it cited the different perspectives of identifying resettlement housingownership for rural housing in judicial practice. To undertake the last chapter thatresettlement housing is the compensation of value to the expropriated target.Resettlement housing also inherited the security characteristics of homestead userights, its security characteristics will impact the identification of ownership. Finallythis article points out the recognized standard of resettlement housing ownership.