Studies On Legalization Of The Limited-property Right House

It is more than ten years since the problem of the “limited-property right house”emerged in our country. The so-called “limited-property right house” refers to thosehouses which are built on the land collectively owned by peasants and sold to residentsoutside the collective organization without planning and the land-transferring fees.What’s more, the house property certificate is issued not by the national housing agencybut by the township or village committees. Specific source of the construction land,special trade subject, incomplete legal procedures and deformed power of property rightare all the characteristics of the “limited-property right house”.There has been a heated debate on whether the “limited-property right house”maintains legitimacy and whether it should do in our jurisprudential circle since itemerged. And conditioned by the restriction of current law, it is often difficult forjudicators to admit the legal status of the “limited-property right house”. Administrativedepartment of housing and land has taken negative, positive, or discriminative attitudeson cases of “limited-property right house” successively. What legal status the“limited-property right house” deserves, and whether it can be legalized has becomemajor challenges confusing Chinese economic and social life.Under this background, the author suggests that the “limited-property right house”should be legalized, and specially discusses issues about the legalization. This essayaims to make some suggestion to help to solve the problems proposed, and it can bedivided into four main parts:The first part introduces the concept, characteristics, background of the“limited-property right house”, which aims to determine the concept and the scope ofsubject, as well as create the logical foundation for later research. The essay points outthat the “limited-property right house” refers to buildings on the land collectivelyowned by peasants, constructed by the township government or by farmers, the laterbeing so-called “commodity”. Their basic features include specific source of theconstruction land, special trade subject, incomplete legal procedures, deformed powerof property right, and specific region.The second part analyzes the negative impact of the “limited-property right house”illegalization, which mainly highlights in disrupting land management work, real estatemarket, and social management. The third part explores the necessity of the “limited-property right house”illegalization and comparative advantage to illegalization. This section also introducesopposite reviews on the “limited-property right house” illegalization. By comparing itsown advantages and disadvantages, we come to the conclusion that the“limited-property right house” should be legalized, and the author also describes thelegal reasons and the main obstacles of its legalization.The fourth part explores that how to deal with the existing “limited-property righthouse”, and puts forward the author’s suggestions about the concrete measures oflegalization.In conclusion, both the equality of collective land rights and the need of socialdevelopment request our country should admit the legal status of the “limited-propertyright house” in the form of legislation. On the other hand, as issues on the“limited-property right house” are quite complicated, the cultivated land protection, theapproval of the construction land, the principles and method of the land trade, thenecessary legal procedures, and the tax revenue collection should be restricted andmanaged by the law.