How Do Land Policies Trigger Land Violations?

Our country is the strictest in the world in implementing a land management system, yet in real life, land violations still occur frequently in some places. Why? Over the past two years, the author visited a number of land violation cases in multiple locations and found that the main cause of land violations is that some local officials collude with relevant leaders of the land and resources departments, using various land policies as a pretext to deceive higher-level governments and farmers. Because these violators not only reap huge profits after the land violation but can also evade legal liability, and some even use this to advance their careers. This has led to a vicious cycle between land violations and political achievement "construction."

I. Manifestations of Land Violations Triggered by Land Policies

In recent years, with the rapid development of rural urbanization and industrialization, the contradiction between supply and demand of land resources in some areas has become increasingly prominent. In order to better protect arable land while alleviating the pressure on land use, the central government or relevant central departments have formulated and issued a number of land policies, such as the "Measures for the Administration of the Transfer of Rural Land Contractual Management Rights" issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, the "Notice of the Ministry of Land and Resources on Further Strengthening Land Consolidation, Reclamation and Development Work" issued by the Ministry of Land and Resources, and the "Measures for the Administration of Pilot Projects Linking Increases and Decreases in Urban and Rural Construction Land" promulgated by the Ministry of Land and Resources, among others. Their purpose is to better protect arable land, expand arable land reserves, and maintain the sustainable use of land. However, during the author's visits to some places, it was observed that certain local officials carry out land violations under the banner of various land policies, resulting in large areas of arable land being illegally occupied.

Based on the actual situations learned during visits, the author summarizes this phenomenon of land violations triggered by land policies into two categories: one is directly carrying out land violations using land policies as a pretext, and the other is applying relevant land policies to carry out land violations.

The first category is carrying out land violations using land policies as a pretext. As is well known, the central government formulates and issues certain land regulations to alleviate land use contradictions and protect arable land, such as the "Notice of the Ministry of Land and Resources on Further Strengthening Land Consolidation, Reclamation and Development Work" issued by the Ministry of Land and Resources. However, some county and township leaders, for certain purposes, abuse their power to deceive superiors and subordinates by using these land policies to illegally requisition and occupy arable land. For example, in 2013, the leaders of G Town in X City occupied nearly 100 mu of arable land (all of which was basic farmland) under the pretext of land consolidation to carry out so-called new rural community construction. The leaders of the district land and resources bureau and the township leaders stated that these construction land occupations were carried out in accordance with the land consolidation project approved by the municipal government and were legal land occupations. However, the farmers whose land was occupied discovered from information obtained from the provincial comprehensive land management office that there was no land consolidation project for G Town in the land consolidation projects approved by the provincial Department of Land and Resources.

There are many similar cases of illegal land occupation using land policies as a pretext, such as the leaders of H Town in F County using the "conversion of agricultural land for exclusive use" document approved by the municipal government to occupy 217 mu of basic farmland in H Village for commercial development. The "Land Administration Law" clearly stipulates that the conversion of agricultural land is a mandatory procedural document for land expropriation, and completing the conversion of agricultural land does not mean that the land expropriation procedures have been completed.

The second category is applying land policies to carry out land violations. From the relevant provisions of some land systems, it can be seen that the purpose of the central government or relevant central departments in formulating these land systems is to expand arable land area for better and standardized land use. However, some local leaders "hang up a sheep's head but sell dog meat," applying these land systems to engage in land violations. The Ministry of Land and Resources issued the "Measures for Pilot Projects Linking Increases and Decreases in Urban and Rural Construction Land," whose purpose is to increase the effective area of arable land and improve arable land quality through means such as building new and demolishing old structures and land consolidation and reclamation. However, during the author's visits to multiple locations, it was learned that some county and township leaders, whether for commercial development land occupation or real estate development, all occupy land under the name of "linking increases and decreases in urban and rural construction land." For example, Z City's construction of an automobile trade city requisitioned more than 1,600 mu of arable land spanning three villages in Z County. According to evidence materials obtained by the farmers whose land was occupied through government information disclosure, the "legal" basis for the land occupation was the linking of increases and decreases in urban and rural construction land approved by the provincial Department of Land and Resources. There are countless similar incidents of illegal land occupation by applying land policies. Another example is Y County in X City occupying several hundred mu of arable land for real estate development, which was also based on the linking of increases and decreases in urban and rural construction land approved by the provincial Department of Land and Resources.

II. Analysis of Factors Behind Land Violations

Through analysis of multiple land violation cases, it can be concluded that there are mainly three reasons why some county and township leaders use land policies to carry out land violations. These three factors interwoven together enable certain county and township leaders to achieve political accomplishments while grabbing "gray" benefits during land violations, evade legal liability, and some can even advance their careers.

1. Land violations can yield huge profits. Seeking enormous "gray" benefits during land violations is an open secret that has emerged in some local officialdom today. Some county and township leaders occupy farmers' land under the guise of "government construction." During the requisition (occupation) process, they intercept and deduct land requisition compensation funds in the name of the government, while also fishing in troubled waters to grab "extra income," or collect "transfer fees" during project bidding and construction to obtain "gray" income. For example, G District requisitioned 259 mu of arable land in Z Village to build a logistics company. The district and township leaders all claimed that the land requisition compensation standard was paid in accordance with the district land price set by the provincial government (56,000 yuan per mu), but during an interview, reporters found on the accounts of the district land and resources bureau that the land requisition compensation standard was actually 62,000 yuan per mu. The farmers discovered from internal documents of the provincial Department of Land and Resources that the resettlement compensation fee of more than 9 million yuan for the farmers whose land was occupied (the document showed that 300 people required monetary resettlement, with a resettlement fee of 30,886 yuan per person) had been intercepted.

This is the main factor behind certain local leaders engaging in land violations.

2. Land policy violations can evade legal liability. In order to safeguard the "rice bowls" of 1.3 billion "citizens," the central government's management of land has become increasingly strict. Some construction projects of certain local governments that do not meet legal conditions find it very difficult to requisition (occupy) land under legal conditions. If land cannot be requisitioned (occupied), project construction cannot proceed; without project construction, political achievements cannot be demonstrated; without political achievements, one's career is unlikely to advance. If they directly violate the law to requisition (occupy) land, they worry that serious land violations might trigger farmer incidents and affect their careers. Therefore, they collude with relevant leaders of the land and resources departments, using the power resources they control to create so-called "land requisition documents" under the pretext of various land policies. With these so-called "land requisition documents," the violating leaders can both requisition (occupy) land under illegal circumstances and evade legal liability. During visits, the author observed that some land violation cases have been exposed, but the violators remain at large under the protection and shielding of certain higher-level leaders.