Study On The Separation Of Land Non-litigation Administrative Execution Ruling

With the rapid development of urbanization and the construction of new countryside,the demand for construction land is expanding rapidly,and the contradiction between land supply and demand is increasingly prominent.Driven by economic interests,all kinds of illegal and illegal land use behaviors are prohibited repeatedly,especially all kinds of social problems caused by forced demolition of houses emerge in an endless stream,and violent anti demolition malignant events often occur in various places.In this context,in February 2012,the Supreme People’s Court issued the provisions on some issues concerning the handling of cases of compulsory execution of compensation decision of housing expropriation on state owned land by the civil law court of applicants.Through judicial interpretation,it formally determined that the execution system of separation of execution should be implemented in the cases of compensation decision of housing expropriation on state owned land,and the application scope of separation of execution should be extended to housing In other non litigation administrative execution cases,such as house demolition and illegal land demolition,local courts and administrative organs have also responded positively,exploring and implementing the separation of execution system,and achieved good results.However,due to the separation system is still in the stage of exploration and operation,there are many problems in the practical operation that need to be further improved,which brings great trouble to the administrative organs and the people’s court.Therefore,this paper makes an in-depth study on the separation system of administrative execution of non litigation of land.On the one hand,it clarifies the concepts,nature characteristics,legislative provisions,judicial policies and other basic contents of administrative execution of non litigation of land,so as to improve the basic theory of the system;on the other hand,it demonstrates the non litigation of land from the perspective of empirical analysis through comparative analysis,research summary and case analysis The advantages of the separation of execution and Adjudication in administrative execution cases and the new mechanism of the separation of execution and adjudication are conducive to improving the efficiency of enforcement and strengthening judicial supervision.It can be said that a comprehensive and in-depth study of the basic theory and practice of the separation system of administrative execution of non litigation land is of great positive significance to guide the practice of administrative law enforcement and judicial execution.This paper mainly discusses the following four aspects: First,from the concept and basic characteristics of land non litigation administrative execution,followed by the analysis of the concept and nature of the separation of land non litigation administrative execution,as well as the legitimacy and evolution process of the implementation.Secondly,it combs the legislative provisions ofthe separation of land non litigation administrative execution and discretion,analyzes the current situation of the implementation of the separation of discretion and execution,highlights the advantages of the new system of the separation of discretion and execution,and investigates and studies the main practices and effects of the separation of discretion and execution in Zhejiang,Jiangsu,Guangdong and other regions in combination with judicial cases and practical practices.Thirdly,on the basis of summing up the national legislation and local practice,this paper points out that the separation of discretion and execution faces some outstanding problems in the process of implementation,such as lack of legal basis,unclear court review standards,confusion of the subject of enforcement,nonstandard enforcement procedures,and imperfect coordination and cooperation mechanism.Finally,in view of the main problems existing in the system,the paper puts forward some ideas,such as improving legislation,refining review standards,clarifying the subject of implementation,standardizing implementation procedures and improving the supporting mechanism of implementation.