


































Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

222 
 

Original Paper 

Research on the Judicial Determination Standards for Illegal 

Administrative Compulsory Demolition Procedures 

Futeng Qiu
1
 & Yu Chen

1
 

1
 School of Ocean Law and Humanities, Dalian Ocean University, Dalian, China  

 

Received: October 30, 2025    Accepted: November 6, 2025   Online Published: November 7, 2025 

doi:10.22158/elp.v8n2p222               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v8n2p222 

 

Abstract  

In the current process of urban and rural governance, the issue of procedural legality has become the 

core point of contention in judicial review of disputes over forced demolition, and the damage to rights 

caused by procedural violations has become a prominent problem in administrative law enforcement 

governance. Starting from the practice of adjudication, this paper explores the specific judgment paths 

for the legality review of the administrative compulsory demolition procedure, focusing on the issue of 

how to establish judicial determination standards for the illegality of the administrative compulsory 

demolition procedure. By applying the method of normative analysis and case comparison, extract the 

consensus-based judgment rules in judicial determination. Research has found that judicial authorities 

are gradually forming operational standards for determination, including standards for strengthening 

the review of procedural evidence and reversing the burden of proof, standards for distinguishing 

formal defects from substantive violations, as well as empirical review standards for compensation for 

procedural violations based on elements such as illegality, damage, and causal relationship. Distill the 

judicial judgment logic scattered in the reasoning of the judgment into clear judicial determination 

standards, promote the transformation of administrative law enforcement from procedural awareness 

to procedural responsibility, and thereby achieve the standardization, verifiability and traceability of 

responsibility of the administrative forced demolition procedure.   

Keywords  

Administrative compulsory demolition, Procedural violation, Judicial determination, Procedural 

legitimacy Administrative compensation 

 

1. Introduction  

In recent years, cases of forced demolition of illegal buildings have been on the rise. The parties 

involved may have their immovable property forcibly demolished by violence without being given the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

223 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

opportunity to make statements or defenses, thereby causing irreversible damage to their family life, 

business operations and even property safety. In practice, there are also procedural violations such as 

the delay of document supplementation behind demolition actions, the formalization of the notice and 

announcement procedures, the absence of statement and defense procedures, and insufficient evidence 

retention. Procedural infringement not only weakens the credibility of administration but also makes it 

a key consideration factor in determining the legality of administrative acts in judicial review. As a 

result, the issue of forced demolition of illegal buildings has evolved into a complex problem involving 

institutional rights protection and administrative compensation risks. 

To address the issue of procedural violations, the state has successively passed laws and regulations 

such as the “Administrative Compulsion Law”, the “Urban and Rural Planning Law”, the 

“Administrative Punishment Law”, and the “State Compensation Law”, along with local regulations, 

gradually establishing a procedural restraint mechanism. However, from a practical perspective, there 

are still gaps in the implementation of systems and governance blind spots with overlapping authorities. 

On the one hand, the program rules are relatively complete at the textual level. On the other hand, due 

to factors such as law enforcement resources, assessment mechanisms, and administrative driving 

forces, some law enforcement links have been weakened or absent. The essence of this problem lies in 

the poor operability of procedural rules and the imperfect responsibility traceability mechanism, which 

leads to a high incidence of procedural violations and frequent demands for judicial relief. Based on 

this practical contradiction, this article focuses on the research topic of “the judicial determination 

standards for procedural violations in administrative forced demolition”, aiming to answer how courts 

identify the standards for procedural violations from the perspective of judicial review, how to 

distinguish formal flaws from substantive violations, and how to define liability for compensation and 

the allocation of evidence in cases where procedural violations cause damage. For this reason, this 

paper systematically screens typical cases of procedural violations in the forced demolition of illegal 

buildings in recent years. By combining the interpretation of current legal provisions and legal theory 

analysis, and adopting a method that combines case studies with normative analysis, it strives to distill 

the determination standards that are both operational and reflect judicial trends. On this basis, it 

proposes improvement paths that can be referred to by the judiciary and administration. 

 

2. The Normative System Foundation of the Administrative Compulsory Demolition Procedure 

2.1 At the Central Level 

Administrative compulsory demolition is a direct compulsory measure taken by administrative 

authorities in the course of performing their regulatory duties against illegal buildings, illegal land use 

and other acts in accordance with the law. The requirement for procedural legality stems from the 

administrative compulsory system. Article 44 of the Administrative Compulsory Law clearly stipulates 

that the party concerned must first be ordered to make corrections within a prescribed time limit. Only 

if the corrections are not made within the time limit can the law enter the compulsory enforcement 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

224 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

stage. At the same time, the law requires administrative authorities to fulfill the procedures of urging 

and announcing before enforcement to ensure that the parties enjoy procedural rights such as 

statements and defenses. From this, three basic stages of the demolition procedure were established, 

namely, ordering rectification, urging announcement and compulsory enforcement. 

At present, the legal system for administrative compulsory demolition in China is mainly based on 

central legislation. The “Administrative Compulsory Law” serves as the core norm and, together with 

the “Urban and Rural Planning Law”, the “Land Administration Law”, and others, forms the basic 

framework. The implementation requirements are further detailed through administrative regulations 

and departmental rules. Article 64 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law clearly stipulates that the 

competent department of urban and rural planning may, in accordance with the law, carry out forced 

demolition for construction activities that violate the planning after ordering the demolition within a 

time limit without success. Although the newly revised “Administrative Penalty Law” does not directly 

stipulate the compulsory demolition procedure, the Supreme People’s Court has already explicitly 

listed “ordering demolition within a time limit” as an independent cause of action under “administrative 

penalty” in the “Interim Provisions on the Subject Matter of Administrative Cases”, which indicates 

that judicial practice has tended to define it as a type of administrative penalty. The newly revised Land 

Administration Law in 2019 has strengthened the control over illegal land use. Article 77 and Article 

83 stipulate that for buildings that violate the land use master plan, a decision to demolish them within 

a time limit must be made, and forced demolition must be included in the administrative penalty 

procedure. If the party concerned fails to perform within the prescribed time limit, they shall apply to 

the court for compulsory enforcement. Although this move highlights the principle of protecting 

cultivated land in terms of system, it also makes the implementation process rely on judicial channels. 

In actual operation, it is prone to cause an extension of the processing cycle and an increase in costs. 

At the level of administrative regulations and rules, the “Regulations on the Expropriation of Houses on 

State-owned Land and Compensation” issued by The State Council in 2011 specifically clarifies the 

compulsory enforcement procedures in Chapter Five. The model of applying to the court for 

compulsory enforcement stipulated in Article 28 of this chapter is in line with the content of Article 53 

of the “Administrative Compulsory Law”. The “Measures for Urban Management and Law 

Enforcement” issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development in 2017 detailed the 

law enforcement procedures and on-site requirements. The “Administrative Penalty Measures for 

Natural Resources” issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2024 provides procedural guidance 

for the handling of related illegal buildings. As this article screens case samples based on the search 

terms of administrative compensation, forced demolition, and illegal buildings, with the aim of 

ultimately achieving actual compensation, judicial authorities, while applying the norms of demolition 

procedures, will also invoke the norms of national compensation. Article 2 of the State Compensation 

Law clearly stipulates that if damage is caused by the illegal exercise of powers by state organs, the 

victim may request compensation. This thus establishes the prerequisite conditions for compensation 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

225 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

liability arising from procedural violations. Article 11 of the judicial interpretation “Provisions of the 

Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation 

Cases” issued by the Supreme People’s Court further points out that when administrative organs fail to 

retain evidence, making it difficult to ascertain the facts, they will bear the adverse consequences of 

presenting evidence. In this way, a judicial review chain has been formed where procedural violations 

constitute administrative act violations, and administrative act violations cause damage, and the state’s 

liability for compensation is immediately initiated. 

2.2 Local Level 

Compared with the relatively complete institutional system at the central level, there are obvious 

implementation deviations at the local level during the implementation process. Although some local 

regulations and rules have made detailed provisions for the forced demolition process, there are 

widespread problems such as the notice and announcement procedures being merely formalities, the 

absence of hearing links, and the non-standard delivery of documents. As a result, in actual operation, 

procedural violations have become the focus of judicial review. When it comes to the administrative act 

of demolishing illegal buildings, which has a significant impact on the rights of the parties involved, an 

extremely cautious attitude must be adopted in legislation (Wang, Y. B., 2024). 

The normative documents at the local level mainly include local regulations, government rules and 

other normative documents, which have both local characteristics and the feature of being scattered. 

For instance, local regulations such as the “Regulations on Urban Renewal of the Shenzhen Special 

Economic Zone” and the “Regulations on Urban and Rural Planning of Jiangsu Province” have made 

detailed provisions in terms of the standards for identifying illegal constructions, handling property 

rights disputes, and the division of responsibilities among departments. While aligning with national 

laws, they also retain flexibility in enforcement. The implementation measures for removing illegal 

structures in places like Hangzhou and Suzhou focus on the management of law enforcement processes 

and emphasize the collaboration among planning, natural resources, and urban management 

departments. In pursuit of efficiency, some places evade legal procedures under the guise of emergency 

demolition, and even engage in illegal acts such as forced demolition at night or obstructing the parties 

from obtaining evidence. The poor connection between local regulations and departmental rules has 

also led to operational difficulties. For instance, when multiple departments jointly identify illegal 

constructions, unclear responsibilities may result in shirking or repetitive law enforcement. This move 

not only infringes upon the procedural rights of the counterparty, but also becomes the main factor for 

administrative authorities to lose in administrative litigation. 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

226 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. The Main Problems of Procedural Violations in Administrative Compulsory Demolition 

Based on the statistics of judgment samples from the Judgments Online and the Wko Xianxing 

Network over the past five years, in administrative forced demolition cases, procedural violations 

remain the main point of contention in judicial review. Whether the procedure is legal is the entry 

criterion for measuring whether the administrative forced demolition act is proper. From the 

perspective of judicial determination, this article holds that procedural violations mainly manifest in 

two aspects: non-standard program initiation and the absence of program nodes. Although the two 

occurred at different stages, the essential cause of both was that the administrative authorities failed to 

fully perform the legal procedures, resulting in the demolition being determined as illegal in the judicial 

review and thus triggering the liability for compensation. 

3.1 The Program Startup Is Not Standardized 

The initiation stage of the program is the source link of administrative compulsory demolition, and its 

legality directly determines the effectiveness of subsequent demolition actions. The rectification within 

a prescribed time limit shall be ordered first, and the performance period shall be clearly defined. If the 

rectification is not made within the time limit, the demolition may be carried out in accordance with the 

law. However, in the practice of judicial adjudication, administrative authorities often enter the 

demolition stage before the conditions for initiation are met or the pre-procedures are completed. In the 

case where Zheng sued the People’s Government of Xiaojiang Town, Pingyang County for forced 

demolition of houses and administrative compensation, the administrative authority organized the 

forced demolition without making a written decision to order rectification before the demolition and 

was unable to provide a delivery voucher. The court, based on the facts, determined that the actions of 

the defendant administrative organ did not meet the prerequisite requirement of ordering rectification 

within a time limit as stipulated in Article 34 of the Administrative Compulsory Law, and also violated 

the provisions of Article 44 of the Public announcement and granting a time limit for self-demolition. 

As the plaintiff’s property suffered losses, the court, in accordance with Article 2 of the State 

Compensation Law and Articles 31 and 32 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several 

Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases, ordered the administrative organ to 

bear the obligation of compensation for the plaintiff's losses. A similar situation was more evident in 

the case where Xu Shengjie sued the Zhonghe Sub-district Office of the People’s Government of 

Yinzhou District, Ningbo City for the forced demolition of houses or facilities. The Zhonghe 

Sub-district neither made a decision to demolish within a time limit nor received instructions from the 

superior government, but directly carried out the forced demolition. It is worth noting that in this case, 

the court cited the provisions of the Zhejiang Province Local Administrative Law Enforcement 

Regulations. According to Article 8 and Article 9 of the Zhejiang Province Comprehensive 

Administrative Law Enforcement Regulations, sub-district offices can only carry out administrative 

law enforcement matters authorized by government announcements. At the same time, in accordance 

with Article 15 and Article 16 of the “Regulations on the Disposal of Illegal Buildings in Zhejiang 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

227 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Province”, the decision to demolish within a time limit shall be made by the department with 

jurisdiction. The Zhonghe Sub-district carried out the demolition without making a decision on the 

demolition within a time limit and without being instructed by the superior government, which is a 

typical act of overstepping authority. The court ultimately ruled in accordance with Article 74 of the 

Administrative Litigation Law that the administrative act was illegal. However, due to the insufficient 

causal relationship between the damage and the act, in accordance with Article 32 of the “Several 

Provisions on Administrative Compensation Cases”, the claim for compensation is not supported. Such 

cases reflect the common procedural laxity and the lack of evidence traceability in grassroots law 

enforcement. Some scholars hold that in cases where there is a lack of a decision on the forced 

demolition of illegal buildings, the fundamental act of the forced demolition of illegal buildings should 

continue to be pursued “forward”, that is, the decision on the demolition of illegal buildings within a 

specified time limit should be regarded as the fundamental act of the forced demolition of illegal 

buildings (Gao, J. F., & Lu, J., 2025, pp. 87-96). 

It can be seen that the problem of non-standard program initiation runs through the process nodes such 

as the failure to make a decision to order rectification and the over-authority initiation of demolition. 

Judicial judgments clearly state that failure to initiate procedures in accordance with the law will result 

in administrative acts being illegal, and when damage is caused, the administrative organ shall bear 

administrative compensation liability. 

3.2 Missing Program Nodes 

When it comes to whether the demolition involved in the initiation of the procedure can begin, the 

procedure nodes reflect precisely how the administrative authorities specifically advance this process. 

It mainly includes whether the execution of the links such as urging, announcement, service and 

evidence fixation is in place. In the case where Guo Moujie sued the Natural Resources and Planning 

Bureau of Weihui City and the People’s Government of Jishui Town, Weihui City for the forced 

demolition of houses or facilities, the two defendants jointly and directly carried out the forced 

demolition, but failed to fulfill the prerequisite requirements of Article 65 of the Urban and Rural 

Planning Law for ordering a stop and making corrections within a time limit. Nor have the procedures 

of urging and making statements and defenses as stipulated in Articles 35 to 37 of the Administrative 

Compulsory Law been carried out. Ultimately, the court made a judgment confirming the violation in 

accordance with Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law. As neither party was able to provide a 

basis for loss assessment, the court ultimately determined the amount of compensation based on the 

third paragraph of Article 47 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of 

the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, with the judge’s discretion, in 

accordance with his life experience. Given that the Urban and Rural Planning Law, as a special law, 

has limitations in regulating illegal buildings under construction, it is necessary to strengthen the legal 

basis by improving the Administrative Compulsory Law, a general law (Sun, Y. P., 2023, pp. 158-160). 

Procedural flaws are particularly common in the announcement stage. In the administrative 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

228 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

confirmation case of Huangshi City’s Moumou Ecological Agriculture Professional Cooperative 

against the People’s Government of Moumou Town, Yangxin County and Xu Mouhua, the “Notice of 

Order to Stop Illegal Construction” involved in the case failed to inform the rights and obligations, and 

there was no evidence to prove that separate notification had been made, resulting in the deprivation of 

the rights of the parties involved. In this regard, the court, in accordance with Article 76 of the 

Administrative Litigation Law and Articles 2, 4 and 36 of the State Compensation Law, ordered the 

administrative organ to bear the liability for property damage compensation. This case particularly 

cited the reversal of the burden of proof as stipulated in Article 11 of the “Judicial Interpretation on 

Administrative Compensation of the Supreme People’s Court”, demonstrating that when courts are 

confronted with procedural violations and clear losses, they adopt a review path of confirming the 

violation and supporting compensation. In addition, non-standard evidence fixation is also an important 

manifestation of program node defects. In the case where Gou Mouyuan sued the Guancang Town 

Government for administrative compensation and non-criminal compensation, the defendant 

administrative agency failed to conduct full audio and video recording and did not register the items in 

the property preservation house, which led to the inability to accurately identify the involved property. 

The court directly ruled that the administrative agency should make advance compensation for the loss 

part and, in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation, combined 

with the on-site evidence and common sense, determined the compensation amount at its own expense. 

In the case of Xu Mouxia v. the People’s Government of Heping Town, Yuzhong County for 

non-criminal compensation, the court pointed out that the defendant’s forced demolition methods were 

improper, resulting in the damage or loss of the plaintiff’s recyclable building materials, and 

compensation should be given. At present, the law enforcement means for the demolition of illegal 

constructions are lacking, which puts the authorities in a dilemma of insufficient deterrence when 

responding to resistance, and tough enforcement is prone to intensify conflicts (Yu, X. J., 2020). 

Moreover, the defendant failed to register and preserve the items inside the house. In response, the 

court, in accordance with Article 4 and Article 36 of the State Compensation Law, determined that this 

act was illegal and caused property damage. At the same time, in accordance with the specific 

provisions on interest calculation in the judicial interpretation, the court ordered compensation for 

direct losses. 

As mentioned above, the problem of missing program nodes is often manifested as having what should 

be but not having it or having what should be but not having it. The root cause lies in the tool-based 

understanding of procedural regulations by local administrative authorities. In cases where the 

notification process is missing, the statements and defenses have not been implemented, the 

enforcement decisions have not been made, the announcement and service processes lack effective 

proof, and the demolition methods are illegal, the judicial consequences caused by the absence of 

procedural nodes show a high degree of consistency. Once any key node is missing, it constitutes a 

serious procedural violation. If property damage is caused as a result, it will also trigger the state’s 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

229 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

liability for compensation. Therefore, on the basis of exploring the inherent meaning of the principle of 

due process presented in the court trial system, the value of procedure should be respected, procedural 

justice should be guaranteed, and the review standards of the principle of due process should be 

constructed (Pan, K. L., & Li, G. H., 2018, pp. 86-94). 

 

4. The Judicial Determination Standards for the Illegality of Administrative Compulsory 

Demolition Procedures 

4.1 The Standards for Strengthening Procedural Evidence Review and Reversing the Burden of Proof 

This article, through the search of cases involving violations of the compulsory demolition procedures 

for illegal buildings, reveals that the majority of judgments indicate that courts are gradually increasing 

their requirements for evidence of procedural facts. If administrative authorities fail to submit a 

complete chain of documents, such as orders to rectify, notices of demand, announcement records, 

service vouchers, and compulsory demolition decisions, the courts will directly determine that the 

procedures are illegal. In the case of Jin Baosong v. the Sanjiang Sub-district Office of Yongjia County 

People’s Government and others for forced demolition of houses and administrative compensation, the 

court held that the Sanjiang Sub-district Office of the defendant was unable to prove the legality of its 

procedures, and the consequences of failure to provide evidence should be borne by the administrative 

organ. This case fully embodies the principle of “he who asserts must prove” stipulated in Article 34 of 

the Administrative Litigation Law, as well as the provision that administrative organs bear the main 

burden of proof. Article 35 and Article 37 of the current Administrative Compulsory Law stipulate that 

when administrative authorities carry out forced demolition, they must strictly fulfill procedural 

obligations such as prior notice and listening to statements and defenses, and properly file relevant 

documents for future reference. During the judicial review process, courts have gradually established a 

legality review standard that the legality of procedural performance must be restored at the evidence 

level. This standard not only requires administrative authorities to complete procedures such as 

notification, urging and announcement in form, but also emphasizes the construction of a closed chain 

at the evidence level to ensure that the legality of the procedures can be restored and verified. In 

disputes over procedural violations, the legality of administrative acts no longer solely relies on the 

self-evidence of administrative authorities, but rather requires verification through an objective chain of 

evidence. Based on this, when judicial authorities apply Article 34 of the Administrative Litigation 

Law, they should establish a strengthened application standard of reversing the burden of proof: when 

an administrative counterpart raises a reasonable question about the legality of a procedure and the 

administrative authority fails to submit evidence forming a closed chain, it is presumed that the 

procedure is illegal. This standard can enhance the intensity of review of procedural evidence, promote 

administrative authorities to move from procedural completion to procedural provability, and achieve a 

deep integration of procedural review and burden of proof. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

230 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4.2 The Criteria for Distinguishing Formal Flaws from Substantive Violations 

In the judicial determination of procedural violations, courts will distinguish the severity of the 

circumstances. Therefore, a distinction standard centered on the degree of impact of procedural flaws 

on rights should be gradually established: if procedural flaws do not affect the substantive outcome of 

the decision and only constitute minor flaws, they shall not be revoked; If the defect leads to 

restrictions on the counterparty’s right to state and defend, unclear facts or damage to rights, it will 

constitute a substantive violation and should be revoked. For instance, in the case of Xu Shengjie 

mentioned above, although the decision to demolish within a time limit was missing, it did not affect 

the legality of the demolition. It was only confirmed as illegal and not revoked. In the case of a certain 

ecological agricultural professional cooperative in Huangshi City, as the “Notice of Order to Stop 

Illegal Construction” did not specify this content, the plaintiff was deprived of the rights to make 

statements, defend themselves and request a hearing. The court determined that the act was 

substantially illegal and revoked the notice. Of course, such revocation does not lead to the invalidity of 

administrative acts. Violations of legal procedures by administrative acts neither lead to nor should lead 

to the invalidity of administrative acts. Therefore, they should be fundamentally denied (Yang, D. F., 

2024, pp. 1002-1020). This distinction standard is in line with the essence of Article 70 of the 

Administrative Litigation Law, that is, the people’s court should focus on whether the illegal 

circumstances have an impact on the legality of the administrative act, rather than merely being 

confined to formal procedures. As a result, judicial review can move from formal legality to 

substantive legitimacy, ensuring administrative efficiency while making the boundaries for correcting 

errors in administrative actions clearer. 

4.3 The Empirical Review Standards for Compensation for Procedural Violations 

In compensation lawsuits arising from administrative forced demolition, the court should establish an 

empirical review standard with illegality, damage and causal relationship as the core elements: if the 

procedural violation directly leads to property loss and the demolition object has legitimate rights and 

interests, the liability for compensation can be established. Both Article 4 of the State Compensation 

Law and Article 76 of the Administrative Litigation Law reflect this requirement. The establishment of 

administrative compensation must be based on the premise that the administrative act is illegal and has 

caused actual damage. In the case of Guo Moujie, although the illegally constructed structures 

themselves are illegal, the building materials will not become illegal property as a result. Neither party 

has provided conclusive evidence to prove the amount of loss of the rock wool board iron house 

involved in the case, and both have stated that they will not apply for an appraisal. Therefore, the court 

will determine the compensation at its discretion. Courts still tend to protect the legitimate interests of 

the claimant in building materials and do not mechanically exclude compensation. In the search process 

of this article, the proportion of such cases is not small. When determining the scope of compensation, 

courts tend to combine the evidence at the judge’s disposal and common sense in life to determine the 

amount of loss at their discretion. If the administrative agency fails to retain video evidence or 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

231 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

assessment materials, the court will regard this as the consequence of failure to provide evidence due to 

procedural violations, and the administrative agency shall bear the responsibility. Considering the 

discretionary coefficient in this way aims to ensure that courts can fully exercise their discretionary 

power in accordance with the characteristics of each specific case when hearing various cases, and 

avoid mechanically applying discretionary rules (Chen, X. X., & Zhu, R. N., 2024, pp. 86-90). The 

establishment of this standard can promote the transformation of administrative compensation from 

formal judgment to empirical review based on evidence and results, making compensation judgments 

more predictable. 

 

5. The Improvement Path of the Judicial Determination Standards for the Illegality of 

Administrative Compulsory Demolition Procedures 

The procedural violations of administrative forced demolition exposed during the judicial adjudication 

process highlight the poor operability of law enforcement. The essence lies in the tension between 

institutional texts and law enforcement practices. First of all, the principle requirements of legal 

provisions regarding procedures have been clearly defined; On the other hand, administrative 

authorities have operational flexibility and discretionary space in complex law enforcement scenarios, 

which leads to the simplification, skipping or even evasion of procedures. At the institutional level, the 

ambiguity of some procedural rules provides the possibility for implementation deviations. For instance, 

the flexible expression of the “notice period” in Article 35 of the Administrative Compulsory Law may 

lead to differentiated operational standards in different regions. In practice, due to the limited law 

enforcement resources at the grassroots level and the efficiency-oriented approach of performance 

assessment, procedural irregularities have become a frequently occurring issue in judicial 

determinations. Furthermore, as a high-authority act, the procedural legitimacy of administrative forced 

demolition not only concerns the rights relief in individual cases but also directly affects the credibility 

of administrative agencies and the overall process of building a law-based government. This also 

means that the governance of procedural violations by judicial authorities needs to go beyond the 

simple institutional level. Therefore, this study suggests that the following aspects can be considered to 

improve the normative improvement path for the operability of judicial determination standards. 

5.1 The Document Chain Is Included In the Necessary Review Items for the Initial Judicial Trial 

When hearing cases of forced demolition, the court should clearly take the integrity of the document 

chain as the first requirement for the initial judicial trial. Specifically, it should be determined whether 

the procedure has been initiated in accordance with the law based on the written order and the list of 

evidence. The list of evidence includes the decision to order rectification or the decision to demolish 

within a time limit, the notice of demand, the written or electronic delivery certificate, the 

announcement record, the decision on compulsory enforcement, as well as the image or mapping report 

of the demolition site. The review results should be listed in the form of items in the reasoning of the 

judgment. If the administrative agency is unable to provide evidence for each item, it should clearly 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

232 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

point out the missing items in the reasoning of the judgment and apply the procedure of reversing the 

burden of proof as illegal. By institutionalizing the document chain as the threshold for the initial trial 

of cases, judicial authorities can leverage their judicata power to urge administrative agencies to 

improve evidence retention and procedural compliance before law enforcement, thereby reducing 

lawsuits caused by the practice of dismantling evidence before obtaining it from the source. 

5.2 Refine the Key Points for Identifying Formal Flaws and Substantive Violations 

In the judgment, the court should clearly take the test of rights impact as the objective criterion for 

distinguishing procedural formal flaws from substantive violations. It is suggested that in the reasoning 

of the judgment, a judgment be made one by one based on four key points: whether the initiation is 

legal, whether the nodes are complete, whether the evidence can be restored, and whether the rights are 

guaranteed. First, if the absence of any one of these key points directly causes the party to lose the 

opportunity to state and defend or to hear, or leads to the inability to restore the facts, then the 

administrative act should be determined to constitute a substantive violation and be revoked. Secondly, 

if the defect is merely in terms of procedural form and does not affect the substantive rights of the 

parties involved, the administrative act can be confirmed as illegal, but the administrative organ should 

be ordered to make corrections or provide explanations. Courts should clearly list the factual and legal 

basis for adopting this standard in their judgment documents, so as to reduce the differences in 

judgment standards among different courts. 

5.3 Clarify the Evidence Standards and Loss Determination Rules for Compensation Review 

When hearing administrative compensation cases based on procedural violations, courts should specify 

the evidence standards for the three elements of illegality, damage and causality. In cases where 

administrative authorities fail to submit key procedural evidence, the court should apply an unfavorable 

presumption or reverse the burden of proof, and require the administrative authority to bear the main 

burden of proof for the scope of damage or the causal relationship. In cases where it is impossible to 

accurately determine the losses, the judgment may be made based on the authorization of the 

“Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law 

of the People’s Republic of China”, in combination with the evidence on file, expert assessment 

opinions or common sense of life, and the basis for determination and calculation methods shall be 

clearly stated in the judgment. In addition, courts can establish several exemplary standard templates 

for calculating demolition compensation within their jurisdiction, such as the pricing basis standards for 

building materials value assessment items and labor and transportation cost items, to ensure 

consistency and predictability of discretion. 

5.4 Establish Judicial Acceptance Standards for Electronic Evidence and Full-Process Imaging 

The forced demolition work should establish a chain of evidence throughout the entire process, 

covering on-site photos, videos, surveying and mapping data, announcement records, and execution 

logs, etc. Given that evidence at the demolition site is prone to loss, it is suggested that the court clarify 

the key points for accepting electronic evidence and video evidence. The submitter is required to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

233 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

simultaneously clarify the generation time of the evidence, the acquisition path, the integrity of the link, 

and the source data such as the timestamp. For the image materials submitted by administrative 

authorities, the court shall require them to be mutually corroborated with independent surveying and 

mapping, third-party appraisal or other evidence on record before they can be accepted. Introducing 

modern information technology into administrative law enforcement and leveraging digital technology 

to improve the governance environment and expand its scope of application also needs to be carried out 

under the constraints of the legal order (Sun, W. N., 2024, pp. 52-62). In judicial practice, courts should 

demonstrate in their judgments the reasons for accepting or not accepting electronic evidence, so as to 

form evidence rules that can be followed in judicial practice, and thereby encourage administrative 

authorities to retain evidence in accordance with the law simultaneously before dismantling it. 

5.5 Establish a Closed-Loop Mechanism for Judicial Feedback and Administrative Compliance 

To enhance the effectiveness of institutionalization, it is suggested that judicial authorities be able to 

conduct feedback work in a standardized manner after making judgments. In the judgment, in addition 

to ruling on individual case relief, the types of deficiencies in administrative procedures and the 

directions for rectification should also be clearly pointed out through attached explanations or judicial 

suggestions. Typical types of violations should be summarized within an annual or semi-annual period 

and fed back to the competent administrative department and grassroots law enforcement units. At the 

same time, it is suggested that local judicial administrative organs and administrative authorities work 

together to formulate a compliance list for forced demolition, incorporate the determination elements 

adopted by courts in their judgments into the administrative law enforcement review form, and include 

them in the compliance guidelines for the pre-law enforcement review procedures. By leveraging the 

guidance of judicial decisions and the introduction of administrative compliance guidelines, a 

closed-loop system is formed, from judgment to feedback, then to law enforcement rectification, and 

ultimately to judicial supervision. This not only ensures the timeliness of judicial relief but also 

effectively promotes the structural optimization of the law enforcement process. 

 

6. Conclusion 

Administrative compulsory demolition is at the intersection of public governance and the protection of 

individual rights. Whether its procedure is proper or not only concerns the outcome of individual case 

handling but also reflects the operational level of administrative power. The violation of judicial review 

procedures does not hinder administrative decision-making, but rather serves as a calibration of the 

boundaries between power and rights. The determination standards formed by judicial trials can serve 

as external norms for administrative law enforcement and also draw clear boundaries for the actions of 

administrative organs. In the process of forced demolition, procedure is the subject that carries rights, 

and procedural justice is the prerequisite for ensuring the credibility of substantive judgments. The 

gradual formation of judicial determination standards has provided clear boundaries for administrative 

authorities at the operational level and also prompted them to re-examine the value of procedures while 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

234 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

pursuing governance effectiveness. In the future, with the improvement of digital governance, the 

traceability of evidence throughout the entire process, and the public participation system, the 

standardization of administrative compulsory demolition procedures will shift from outcome control to 

process governance. It is expected that judicial rationality and administrative self-discipline will work 

in synergy to make administrative forced demolition a model of law-based governance and shape a 

modern government image that is both powerful and warm. 

 

Fund Project  

The 2020 Liaoning Provincial Social Science Planning Fund Project. Research On Forward-Looking 

Policy Tools for Social Risk Early Warning of Artificial Intelligence Technology (Key Project, 

L20agl016), Project Leader Chen Yu. 

 

References 

Chen, X. X., & Zhu, R. N. (2024). The rule structure for determining the amount of ecological and 

environmental damage compensation by referring to the amount of administrative penalty fines. 

People’s Justice, 2024(24), 86-90. 

Gao, J. F., & Lu, J. (2020). Research on Judicial Review of Forced Demolition of Illegal Buildings. 

Yinshan Academic Journal, 38(01), 87-96. 

Pan, K. L., & Li, G. H. (2018). An Empirical Consideration of the Value of Procedural Justice from the 

Perspective of Administrative Trials. Administration and Law, 2018(05), 86-94. 

Sun, W. N. (2024). Rational Deviation and Technical Reinforcement of Administrative Procedures in 

the Era of Data Governance. Journal of Beijing University of Chemical Technology (Social 

Sciences Edition), 2024(02), 52-62. 

Sun, Y. P. (2023). On the Improvement of the Compulsory Demolition System for Illegal Buildings in 

China: From the Perspective of Administrative Organs’ Compulsory Enforcement. Hua Zhang, 

2023(09), 158-160. 

Wang, Y. B. (2024). Research on the Compulsory Demolition System of Illegal Buildings. Heilongjiang 

University. 

Yang, D. F. (2024). Denial of the Invalidity Theory of Administrative Acts Due to Procedural 

Violations. Chinese and Foreign Jurisprudence, 36(04), 1002-1020. 

Yu, X. J. (2020). Research on Compulsory Demolition of Illegal Buildings by the Government. Yantai 

University. 

 

 


