Zhejiang acres of collective mountain of suspects being 40 years selling 7600 contracting | field | sale _ news
In 2007, beshanzuensis in Qingyuan County of Lishui town three 1164 the village collective fields for sale, contractor 7600 only got 40 years of contracting, which has been kept in the dark for up to 5 years. After the incident, three groups of villagers as contracting procedures are not legitimate, then the contractor to court, requirements determined in the contract is not valid. But the case after 3 rounds 6 litigation, nearly 2 years has not been concluded.
Recently, the villagers ' representatives will reflect this to the reporter. Qingyuan journalists to conduct field investigations and interviews with a number of parties.
Villagers complaint village illicit sale of collective mountain
Three village beshanzuensis Qingyuan County is located in the national nature reserve to the East, 1100 meters above sea level on average, approximately 50 kilometers from the Qingyuan County, originally belonged to he Hu Xiang, was relegated to the town of beshanzuensis.
The afternoon of June 6, reporters visiting the three village on-site interviews. In the territory of the village of reporters saw mountain menace to the lush vegetation, lush. Villagers told reporters that the mostly cedar and pine trees on the hills, mountains, good environment.
After entering the village reporters found that the villagers ' houses are scattered, most of the villagers and young migrant workers, is one of the few left behind the old man. However, in this seemingly tranquil village, a remarkable case happened in recent years.
According to the villagers ' complaints in 2007, when he was Secretary of the village branch Wu Xuewu, village head Wu Xuexing, who through manipulation, tree has long been a neighboring village to the mountain village of felling trees unlawfully, to village collectives 1164 hectares of mountains for a transfer to the then Pan Jianyou working in Qingyuan town forest station management.
But for this incident, villagers had been kept in the dark for up to 5 years. Until the end of 2012, the general election of the village collective, Wu Xuewu, Wu Xuexing no longer as village leaders, this exposure.
At the urging of the villagers, Wu Xuewu and Wu Xuexing produced a report dated July 14, 2007 minutes of the villagers ' Congress (hereinafter referred to as the record) and signed a document dated August 14, 2007 the forest transfer of contract management and administration contract (hereinafter referred to as contracts) copies of, to prove his "innocence".
Reporters saw in the contract, contract for a period of 40, only 7600 transfer fee. Pan Jianyou after contracting party b, party a all three village reserves the right, Woods all reserves the right, the income generated within the contracted period, b sides by 3:7 into, and party b is entitled to assign the contract to another person.
Another contract, "at the end of non-party resulting in tree cutting, the automatic extension of the contract period. "" This article is equivalent to mountains in his forever, and when does he want to cut down trees when cut. "The villagers Wu Gen said that everyone agreed that it's ridiculous.
Villagers after a survey found that the records of the Conference and of the contract where there are many frauds. To this end, beginning in 2014, three groups of villagers to take Pan Jianyou to court, demanding the abolition of the contract, to recover this 1164 acre collective farm.
The villagers think that contracting procedures are fraud
In accordance with the People's Republic of China stipulated in the organic law of the villagers, rural land contracted to individuals outside the collective economic organizations, should be given by the 2/3 villagers ' representatives agree to and township (town) people's Government.
It is understood that the 2007 total of villagers in three village representatives of 32 people. According to the record, according to the villager representative meeting, on July 14, 2007, representatives of 22 villagers sign, just meet the requirements of 2/3.
However, according to the records of the proceedings of the Liu Chang (then he Hu Xiang stationed in three village officials) recalls, "this meeting my handwriting is not bad, but not written in the Assembly, but Wu Xuewu and Wu Xuexing lets me write, sign behind was not representative of 22 villagers. ”
"In the 22 people, many villagers said they had not signed, there are 2 villagers have testified they had no sign character. "The villagers Wu Xuetian told reporters.
So, is it really, as villagers said, journalists contacted Pan Jianyou, respectively, and then Wu Xuexing, Director of the village.
"Representatives of several villagers desperate for mountain contracted out, someone willing to contract very well. "For the alleged sale of village collective fields, Wu Xuexing answering in a way. But for the record, and the original of the contract where Wu Xuexing quibbled unable to do so.
"The record copy is held in the village village after villagers ' congresses to me, original in the village, village representatives behind the authenticity of a signature, is not clear. In addition, the chapter of village cadres got Township covers of the contract, so I don't know the official seal is true or false. "Pan Jianyou told reporters that because the village provided procedures are complete, so he signed a contract with the village.
Three groups of villagers believe that the parties can't even take the originals of the records of the Conference, to a large extent indicates that the contracting procedures were false.
However, after the case, it is not easy as they think.
Case played six times in two years not completed
In August 2014, Wu Xuetian 17 villagers on behalf of the plaintiffs, three groups of village and Pan Jianyou on the Court. In October 2014, Qingyuan County people's Court to 17 villagers on behalf of plaintiff qualification for the rejected prosecution. In December 2014, in Lishui City Court rejected the appeal and upheld the ruling.
In December 2014, the plaintiff into three heaps after the village Board, Pan Jianyou to court again. In March 2015, Qingyuan County people's Court "mountain of employer on the basis of the records of the Conference does not meet the required 2/3 above the villagers ' representatives agreed to, violations of the agreed procedures of democracy" for the verdict contract. In July 2015, Lishui City Intermediate Court "mountain agreed upon whether the employer violated democratic procedures did not identify" for the ruling remanding the villagers withdrawn after the indictment.
In October 2015, Wu Xuetian 469 villagers for the plaintiff, the villagers ' Committee and Pan Jianyou once again to court. In January this year, Qingyuan County people's Court for "based on the available evidence cannot identify the meeting records of the village on behalf of the authenticity of the signature, should be borne by the village of proof cannot be legal consequences" for, feel that the meeting violated agreed procedures of democracy, ruling the contract avoided. In May, the hospital, Lishui city once again, "the basic facts are not clear" ruling remanding.
"For the first time in the retrial on the grounds that plaintiffs are mistaken, did is excusable, but 2 times after remand, I cannot understand. "The plaintiff's Attorney, lawyer with Zhejiang rayon Yu Shimin told reporters.
Hospital, Lishui city official told reporters that three rounds of litigation caused by, but the plaintiff's subjects are not the same, legally belongs to a different case, court rules and the object are the same, the last round of litigation came to the conclusion, not directly applicable to the next round of litigation.
Next, after the conclusion of the 4th round of the people's Court in Qingyuan County, if Pan Jianyou appeal, Lishui City Intermediate Court again remanded in accordance with law.
In Qingyuan interviews, the reporter learned that villagers in 2011, will own more than 40 acres hill farm with 360,000 sold to others logging, it is conceivable that three 1164 hectares in the village of collective farms, which benefits can be seen.
The newspaper will continue to pay attention to developments. -Reporter Huang Xiaobin cub reporter Qiu Yiwen
(Manuscript sources: modern gold)
Responsible editor: Zheng Hanxing
Article keywords:Mountain fire
I want feedback
Save a Web page
The Yangtze evening news network
浙江千亩集体山场疑遭贱卖 7600元承包40年|山场|贱卖_新闻资讯
2007年，丽水庆元县百山祖镇三堆村1164亩集体山场涉嫌被贱卖，承包人仅7600元便获得了40年的承包经营权，而村民一直被蒙在鼓里长达5年。事发后，三堆村村民认为承包手续不合法，遂将承包人告上法庭，要求判定承包合同无效。但该案历经3轮6次诉讼、近2年的时间仍未审结。
近日，村民代表将此事向本报记者进行了反映。记者前往庆元县进行实地调查，并采访了多名当事人。
村民投诉村干部私卖集体山场
三堆村位于庆元县国家级自然保护区百山祖的东部，平均海拔1100米，离庆元县城约50公里，原属合湖乡，后被划到了百山祖镇。
6月6日下午，记者前往三堆村进行实地采访。在村境内记者看到，山体连绵不断，植被茂盛、郁郁葱葱。村民告诉记者，山上大多为杉树和松树，山林环境良好。
进村后记者发现，各村民的房屋比较分散，且年轻的村民大多外出打工，留下来的是为数不多的老人。不过，就是在这个看似平静的村子里，近年来却发生了一桩不同寻常的案件。
据村民投诉，2007年，时任村支部书记吴学武、村主任吴学兴等人通过暗箱操作，以山上的树木长期遭邻村村民盗伐为由，将村集体所有的1164亩山场转让给当时在庆元县荷地镇林业站工作的潘建友经营管理。
不过对于这件事情，村民一直被蒙在鼓里长达5年。直到2012年底，村集体换届选举，吴学武、吴学兴不再担任村领导后，这个事情才曝光。
在村民的强烈要求下，吴学武和吴学兴拿出了一份落款时间为2007年7月14日的村民代表大会会议记录（以下简称《会议记录》）和一份落款时间为2007年8月14日签订《山林转让承包经营管理合同》（以下简称《合同》）的复印件，以此证明自己的“清白”。
记者在《合同》上看到，山场承包期限为40年，转让费仅为7600元。乙方潘建友承包经营后，山权归甲方三堆村村委会所有，林权归双方所有，承包期内所产生的收益，甲乙双方按3：7分成，且乙方有权将承包合同转让给他人。
另外合同规定，“期满时如非乙方造成不能采伐林木，则自动延长合同期至可伐。”“这条规定，相当于山场永远归他所有了，他想什么时候砍树就什么时候砍。”村民吴根养说，大家都认为这太荒唐了。
村民经过一番调查，发现《会议记录》和《合同》存在许多造假的地方。为此，2014年开始，三堆村村民将潘建友告上了法庭，要求废除该《合同》，希望收回这1164亩集体山场。
村民认为承包手续都是造假的
按照《中华人民共和国村民组织法》的规定，将农村土地发包给本集体经济组织以外的个人承包，应当事先经2/3村民代表同意并报乡（镇）人民政府批准。
据了解，2007年三堆村共有村民代表32人。根据《会议记录》显示，2007年7月14日召开的村民代表会议上，有22名村民代表在上面签字，刚好达到2/3的要求。
然而，据《会议记录》的记录人刘昌会（时任合湖乡驻三堆村干部）回忆：“这份会议记录是我的笔迹不错，但不是在大会上写的，而是事后吴学武和吴学兴让我写的，当时后面并没有22名村民代表的签字。”
“在这22人中，已有多位村民表示自己当时没有签过字，有2位村民已经出庭作证自己没有在上面签过字。”村民吴学田告诉记者。
那么，事情是否真如村民所说，记者分别联系到了潘建友和时任村主任吴学兴。
“当时几位村民代表急于将山场承包出去，有人愿意承包就很好了。”对于是否涉嫌贱卖村集体山场，吴学兴是这样回答记者的。不过对于《会议记录》和《合同》的原件在何处，吴学兴却含糊其词答不上来。
“《会议记录》复印件是村里召开村民代表大会后村里给我的，原件应该在村里，至于后面村民代表签字的真伪，自己也不清楚。另外，《合同》也是村干部拿到乡政府盖的章，所以我也不知道公章是真是假。”潘建友告诉记者，因为村里提供的手续都比较齐全，所以才跟村里签订了承包合同。
三堆村村民认为，当事人连《会议记录》的原件都拿不出来，很大程度上可以说明当时承包手续都是造假的。
不过，这场官司打起来后，却并非村民们想象的那么简单。
官司两年内打了六次还未审结
2014年8月，吴学田等17名村民代表为原告，将三堆村村委会和潘建友告上了法庭。2014年10月，庆元县人民法院以17名村民代表不具备原告诉讼主体资格为由，裁定驳回起诉。2014年12月，丽水市中院裁定驳回上诉，维持原裁定。
2014年12月，原告变为三堆村村委会后，再次将潘建友诉至法院。2015年3月，庆元县人民法院以“山场发包所依据的《会议记录》未达到法定的2/3以上村民代表的同意、违反民主议定程序”为由，判决合同无效。2015年7月，丽水市中院以“山场发包是否违反民主议定程序未查清”为由，裁定发回重审，村委会之后申请撤回了起诉。
2015年10月，吴学田等469名村民为原告，将村委会、潘建友再次告上法庭。今年1月，庆元县人民法院以“根据现有证据无法鉴别《会议记录》上村民代表签名真伪，应由村委会承担举证不能法律后果”为由，认为《会议记录》违反民主议定程序，判决合同无效。5月，丽水市中院再次以“基本事实不清”裁定发回重审。
“第一次中院发回重审的理由是因为原告主体弄错了，的确情有可原，但之后2次发回重审，我对此表示不能理解。”原告方的代理律师、浙江丽阳律师事务所律师余世敏告诉记者。
丽水市中院相关负责人告诉记者，这三轮诉讼虽然起因相同，但是原告的主体都不相同，在法律上属于不同案件，法庭调查的规则和对象也就各不相同，上一轮诉讼得出的结论，不能直接适用到下一轮诉讼中。
接下来，庆元县人民法院第4轮审结后，如果潘建友再次上诉，丽水市中院依法不会再次发回重审。
记者在庆元走访时了解到，有村民曾于2011年将自家40余亩山场以36万的价格卖给他人砍伐，可想而知，三堆村的1164亩集体山场，其中利益可见一斑。
本报将继续予以关注事件进展。 □记者 黄小宾 见习记者 邱一文
（稿件来源：现代金报）
责任编辑：郑汉星
文章关键词： 山场 贱卖
扬子晚报网