Villagers sued the Beijing Tongzhou District Government as a District Court (photo) | | villagers Tongzhou district _ news

Tongzhou district, Chang Yue Peng (middle) appear in court

China, March 31 (Xinhua Hu yongping) this afternoon, sued by villagers with Tongzhou District Government fails to perform the statutory duties of administrative cases, third intermediate people's Court in Beijing. This case the presiding judge who heard Dean Wu deposit Tongzhou, Chang Yue Peng as the defence agent to appear in court. This 16 CPPCC National Committee members were invited to participate in the trial as observers. Another Tongzhou district approximately 50 grass-roots cadres came to observe the trial of this case.

The focus of controversy in this case is: the case involves whether the Government has to investigate and verify the village village affairs matters and ordered released duties according to law and the question of whether the defendants in the case have to perform their duties.

Plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff Xiao Ma Zhuang village in Tongzhou district Liyuan area. On June 30, 2015, the plaintiff under the People's Republic of China village Committee organic law and other related laws and regulations provides that Xiao Ma by way of China Post's EMS to the West Village the villagers ' Committee made public the village collective land expropriation and 25 village information applications. XI Xiao Ma Zhuang village on July 2 to sign, but did not return. On August 4, the plaintiff Xiao Ma Zhuang village to the West again with these applications of village affairs, XI Xiao Ma Zhuang village sign again on August 6, has yet to reply.

On August 25, 2015, the plaintiff under the provisions of the 31st article of the organic law of the villagers ' Committee, asked the defendant to the District Government ordered application of village affairs, on August 27, 2015, the defendant signed for, but so far has not taken any measures ordered village affairs. The defendants ' actions constitute administrative omission. Plaintiff requested the Court that the accused was not in the XI Xiao Ma Zhuang village, within the statutory time limit order on plaintiff's application for village affairs June 30, 2015 public is illegal; XI Xiao Ma Zhuang village, order the defendant ordered according to the organic law of the villagers ' committees and other related laws and regulations applying to the public according to law the plaintiff 25 village information.

The defendant argued, the defendant has discharged its responsibilities. Defendants receive the plaintiffs application, timely transferred to Liyuan town, Tongzhou District Government and civil administration, required after villagers reported the District Government, are handled by the District Government. Li Yuan Zhen XI Xiao Ma Zhuang village, Government ordered the plaintiff's application for village affairs public, and the village Committee investigation to verify the fulfilment of duties of village affairs. Village view, the plaintiff applied for an open content does not have time, unable to determine the specific content of their application for village affairs. But village every year in accordance with the relevant provisions of the village affairs, there are no undisclosed circumstances. Defendant ordered town Government organize relevant departments to reply to the plaintiff on the issue of village affairs. But the plaintiff did not present the town government, the village Committee organization's reply will be face to face. The defendant submitted that, in accordance with the provisions of the organic law of the villagers ' Committee, and only in the village do not publish or publish untrue's case, by the Governments or authorities responsible for investigation and verification, shall be ordered released according to law. XI Xiao Ma Zhuang village, plaintiffs cannot prove that there are published not published in time or the matter is not true, the prosecution cannot be established. Therefore requests the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

In addition, the plaintiffs against the defendant challenged the evidence produced in court that some evidence before the defendant not to show them, to responding to suspected improvised.

Press before the deadline, the case is still pending. NET will continue to track the progress of the case.

Responsible editor: Mao Minmin SN184

Article keywords:
Village of Tongzhou district

I want feedback
Save a Web page
China NET

村民状告北京通州区政府不作为 区长出庭(图)|村民|通州区_新闻资讯

通州区区长岳鹏（中）出庭应诉

　　中国网3月31日讯 （记者胡永平）今天下午，一起由村民起诉通州区政府不履行法定职责的行政案件，在北京市第四中级人民法院审理。本案由该院院长吴在存担任审判长进行审理， 通州区区长岳鹏作为被告方代理人出庭应诉。本次庭审邀请了16位政协委员参与旁听。另有约50位通州区的基层干部赶来旁听了本次案件的审理。

　　本案争议的焦点是：案件本身涉及区政府是否具有对村委会村务公开事项进行调查核实并责令依法公布的职责；以及本案中被告是否已经依法履行职责的问题。

　　原告诉称，原告系通州区梨园地区小马庄村村 民。2015年6月30日，原告根据《中华人民共和国村民委员会组织法》等相关法律、法规的规定，通过中国邮政EMS的方式向西小马庄村村民委员会提出公 开该村村集体土地征收征用情况等25项村务信息的申请。西小马庄村村委会于7月2日签收，但未回复。8月4日，原告再次向西小马庄村村委会提出上述村务公 开申请，西小马庄村村委会于8月6日再次签收，仍未回复。

　　2015年8月25日，原告根据《村民委员会 组织法》第三十一条之规定，向被告提出《要求区政府责令村务公开申请书》，被告于2015年8月27日签收，但至今未采取任何措施责令村务公开。被告的行 为已经构成行政不作为。故原告诉请法院确认被告未在法定期限内责令西小马庄村村委会对原告2015年6月30日提出的村务公开申请进行公开的行为违法；判 令被告责令西小马庄村村委会依据《村民委员会组织法》等相关法律、法规的规定向原告公开其依法申请的25项村务信息。

　　被告辩称，被告已经履行了相关职责。被告收到 原告申请后，及时转送梨园镇政府及通州区民政局，要求村民情况后报送区政府，由区政府根据情况进行处理。梨园镇政府责令西小马庄村村委会对原告申请的村务 公开内容进行公开，并对该村委会是否履行村务公开职责进行调查核实。村委会认为，原告申请公开的内容没有时间节点，无法确定其申请村务公开的具体内容。但 村委会每年都按照相关规定进行村务公开，不存在未公开的情形。被告另责令镇政府组织相关部门当面对原告就村务公开问题进行答复。但原告未到场参加镇政府、 村委会组织的当面答复会。被告认为按照《村民委员会组织法》的规定，只有在村委会不及时公布或者公布的事项不真实的情况下，才由政府或主管部门负责调查核 实，责令依法公布。现原告不能证明西小马庄村村委会存在不及时公布或则公布的事项不真实的情形，其起诉不能成立。故请求法院驳回原告的诉讼请求。

　　另外，原告方对被告在法庭上出示的多份证据提出质疑，认为一些证据被告在之前没有向他们出示过，有为了应诉临时制作之嫌。

　　截止记者发稿前，本案仍在审理。本网将继续跟踪报道案情的进展情况。

责任编辑：茅敏敏 SN184

文章关键词：
村民 通州区

我要反馈
保存网页
中国网