Case Study On The Recovery Of The Right To Use Idle State Construction Land

The use of idle land to recover system to regulate the land market,curb land idle phenomenon,but as a result of legislation for the definition of idle land standard is too simple,idle unclear responsibility identification,the problem such as idle land to recover condition is unknown.As a result,there are the following main controversies in the court decisions: 1.Whether the land involved constitutes idle land;2.Whether the government or the land-use right holder is responsible for idle liabilities;3.Whether the government can recover the idle land involved.First of all,for the formation of idle land,this paper believes that it should be inclined to identify idle land from a broad perspective.As far as possible,expansionary standards should be adopted in the identification standards,and idleness outside the legal provisions should be included in the explicit legal identification as far as possible.In addition,in the identification of idling liability,the reason of idling caused by the court seizure should belong to the land-use enterprise.Judicial seizure is generally caused by internal reasons such as debt dispute,capital chain break or commercial risks,and most of them are caused by the use of the land mortgage,resulting in the idle can be foreseen.According to the prohibition theory of abuse of basic power,it shows that when the subject exercises the right,there is an intentional or obvious fault,which should be taken into consideration.However,the idle liability under the circumstance that the land transferred is non-net but does not affect the construction is not entirely on the user.Because the person that use is worried not necessarily good land is right the influence of late construction,in order to avoid loss won’t start work easily.Subjectively,the user of the right to use the land does not have intentional or obvious fault,and it is not caused by improper exercise of the right to leave the land idle.Finally,as for the exercise of the government’s right of recall,after it is clear that the act of recall belongs to a specific administrative act,it should be determined whether the exercise of the specific administrative act is justified or not.During the period of land seizure,the recovery of land use rights involves huge disputes of economic interests.Blind emphasis on recovery is not conducive to the protection of investors’ interests and the optimization of urban investment environment.At the same time,judicial power has a supervisory role on the executive power,and the exercise of judicial power should meet the unification of legal effect and social effect.Therefore,it is necessary for the court to make a choice based on the interests of all parties and social effects under the premise of fairness and justice.In addition,whether the government can unilaterally take back the idle land with compensation on the grounds of public interest.It is necessary to make clear that land expropriation for public welfare is compulsory,while land expropriation for compensation is a non-compulsory administrative decision.The two are different administrative ACTS.If the government takes this unilateral decision to withdraw,it is a confusion of the essence of the two,a wrong application of the law,and a violation of the administrative procedures and the principle of the protection of trust interests.