有关征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋合同问题的实证研究

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

陈永中

导师:

赵万一

导师单位:

民商法学院(知识产权学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋合同;合同性质;合同效力;家事代理

摘要:

因城市的扩展和工商业用地需求的不断增长,土地作为基本生产要 素,在从计划经济向市场经济的转型中被视为引发社会矛盾和权益纠纷的 “导火线”。它将作为中国解决“三农”问题和保障经济社会可持续发展的突 破口。征地补偿安置产生的一系列问题得不到妥善解决,引发的群体性事 件增加及社会矛盾激化,必然给社会带来不稳定因素。传统的民事司法理 念、现行的一些制度体系制约了解决途径,对被征地农民进行补偿安置的 实践运作中暴露出的诸多问题也亟待解决。在实践办案中面临一系列的司 法困惑和社会压力。因此,对被征地农民进行补偿安置中引发的民事纠纷 涉讼案例进行实证研究,分析实践中存在的问题,提出解决方案的构想, 对解决被征地农民进行补偿安置中引发的相关民事纠纷,希望有所裨益。 全文共分为以下五大部分。 第一部分提出了在办案司法实践中遇到的璧山县征地转非农民就政 府划拨地自建房屋而与他人发生合同纠纷类案中的个案,即原告卢某、王 某某、王某诉被告刘某某要求确认联合建房合同无效案,用以作为据以研 究的案例,对该案的案情、一审法院查明的事实和判决要旨进行了介绍, 一审法院判决驳回原告方所诉确认“联合建房合同”为无效合同的诉讼请 求。通过对该案的相关介绍,归纳提炼出案件的焦点有:案件所涉合同性 质及合同效力的认定和所涉家事代理方面的认定。 第二部分介绍了该类纠纷案件涉讼的原因、所涉合同表现形式、相关 背景及案件特征。文中先介绍了发生征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋纠纷的 涉讼原因,还介绍了所涉合同表现形式:房屋买卖合同或房屋预售合同, 搭建合同、联合建房合同、集资建房合同。在介绍了相关背景后,还从合 同相对人情况、合同的名称和主要内容、诉讼主体及请求、订立“集资建 房协议”或“联合建房合同”的原因、合同履约情况等方面叙述了该类纠纷 案件特征。 第三部分论述了征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋纠纷案件所涉合同性 质及合同效力、家事代理方面的争议和分歧意见。在涉及案件所涉合同性 质及合同效力方面,争议和分歧意见有:认为是合作建房合同且有效;认 为是房屋买卖合同,合同效力上又有效力待定的合同、无效合同和有效合同三种分歧意见;认为是代建合同且有效;认为是土地转让后的房地产开 发合同且无效;认为是房屋转让合同且效力待定。涉及家事代理方面的争 议和分歧意见有:无权代理且未追认,应认定合同无效;构成家事代理, 应认定合同有效。 本文第四部分先从法学理论和法律规定两方面论述了关于有关合同 性质及合同效力、家事代理制度,然后明确表明了笔者的观点,笔者认为, 该类合同应当被认定为将划拨土地进行转让的土地使用权转让合同,因双 方均未提交在起诉前经过有批准权的人民政府批准办理土地使用权出让 手续方面的相关证据,该类合同效力应当认定为无效。原告作为妻子一方 逾越日常家事代理权,被告应没有理由相信对原告作为夫妻一方涉及处分 其夫妻共同财产中的不动产的行为构成表见代理时,则原告签约行为不能 构成表见代理,原告卢某与被告所签的《集资建房协议》的合同效力应认 定为无效合同。 本文第五部分认为由于在案件起诉前未经有批准权的人民政府批准 办理土地使用权出让手续前,实为划拨土地使用权转让的“合作建房”协议 或合同在法律意义上也是无效合同,而受损失最大的一定是农转非农民。 此类案件的处理不当,将引发征地农民或购房人群访、激访。为此,笔者 探讨性地提出了完善相关制度的若干构想,试拟从根本上预防征地转非农 民划拨地自建房屋纠纷。

学科:

民商法学

提交日期

2025-12-03

引用参考

陈永中. 有关征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋合同问题的实证研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 有关征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋合同问题的实证研究
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 05554130100326
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 陈永中
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 赵万一
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋合同;合同性质;合同效力;家事代理
  • dc.subject
  • Non-farmers to switch land to be allocated to self-built housing contract;The nature of the contract;The validity of the contract;Family agency
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 因城市的扩展和工商业用地需求的不断增长,土地作为基本生产要 素,在从计划经济向市场经济的转型中被视为引发社会矛盾和权益纠纷的 “导火线”。它将作为中国解决“三农”问题和保障经济社会可持续发展的突 破口。征地补偿安置产生的一系列问题得不到妥善解决,引发的群体性事 件增加及社会矛盾激化,必然给社会带来不稳定因素。传统的民事司法理 念、现行的一些制度体系制约了解决途径,对被征地农民进行补偿安置的 实践运作中暴露出的诸多问题也亟待解决。在实践办案中面临一系列的司 法困惑和社会压力。因此,对被征地农民进行补偿安置中引发的民事纠纷 涉讼案例进行实证研究,分析实践中存在的问题,提出解决方案的构想, 对解决被征地农民进行补偿安置中引发的相关民事纠纷,希望有所裨益。 全文共分为以下五大部分。 第一部分提出了在办案司法实践中遇到的璧山县征地转非农民就政 府划拨地自建房屋而与他人发生合同纠纷类案中的个案,即原告卢某、王 某某、王某诉被告刘某某要求确认联合建房合同无效案,用以作为据以研 究的案例,对该案的案情、一审法院查明的事实和判决要旨进行了介绍, 一审法院判决驳回原告方所诉确认“联合建房合同”为无效合同的诉讼请 求。通过对该案的相关介绍,归纳提炼出案件的焦点有:案件所涉合同性 质及合同效力的认定和所涉家事代理方面的认定。 第二部分介绍了该类纠纷案件涉讼的原因、所涉合同表现形式、相关 背景及案件特征。文中先介绍了发生征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋纠纷的 涉讼原因,还介绍了所涉合同表现形式:房屋买卖合同或房屋预售合同, 搭建合同、联合建房合同、集资建房合同。在介绍了相关背景后,还从合 同相对人情况、合同的名称和主要内容、诉讼主体及请求、订立“集资建 房协议”或“联合建房合同”的原因、合同履约情况等方面叙述了该类纠纷 案件特征。 第三部分论述了征地转非农民划拨地自建房屋纠纷案件所涉合同性 质及合同效力、家事代理方面的争议和分歧意见。在涉及案件所涉合同性 质及合同效力方面,争议和分歧意见有:认为是合作建房合同且有效;认 为是房屋买卖合同,合同效力上又有效力待定的合同、无效合同和有效合同三种分歧意见;认为是代建合同且有效;认为是土地转让后的房地产开 发合同且无效;认为是房屋转让合同且效力待定。涉及家事代理方面的争 议和分歧意见有:无权代理且未追认,应认定合同无效;构成家事代理, 应认定合同有效。 本文第四部分先从法学理论和法律规定两方面论述了关于有关合同 性质及合同效力、家事代理制度,然后明确表明了笔者的观点,笔者认为, 该类合同应当被认定为将划拨土地进行转让的土地使用权转让合同,因双 方均未提交在起诉前经过有批准权的人民政府批准办理土地使用权出让 手续方面的相关证据,该类合同效力应当认定为无效。原告作为妻子一方 逾越日常家事代理权,被告应没有理由相信对原告作为夫妻一方涉及处分 其夫妻共同财产中的不动产的行为构成表见代理时,则原告签约行为不能 构成表见代理,原告卢某与被告所签的《集资建房协议》的合同效力应认 定为无效合同。 本文第五部分认为由于在案件起诉前未经有批准权的人民政府批准 办理土地使用权出让手续前,实为划拨土地使用权转让的“合作建房”协议 或合同在法律意义上也是无效合同,而受损失最大的一定是农转非农民。 此类案件的处理不当,将引发征地农民或购房人群访、激访。为此,笔者 探讨性地提出了完善相关制度的若干构想,试拟从根本上预防征地转非农 民划拨地自建房屋纠纷。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Due to the expansion of cities and industrial and commercial land need , the growing land as the basic factors of production, from a planned economy to a market economy in transition is regarded as trigger social conflicts and disputes interests "fuse", as a breakthrough China will solve the "Three Rural" issue and guarantee sustainable economic and social development. Resettlement of the land requisition compensation is not properly resolved a series of issues, triggered the mass incidents to increase and intensify social contradictions, is bound to bring about social instability. The traditional concept of civil justice, some of the existing system of restricting the solution to the land requisition compensation for farmers in the resettlement operation in the practice exposes many problems to be resolved, in practice facing a series of cases in the judicial confusion and social pressure. Therefore, the land compensation for resettlement of peasants in the suit for civil disputes triggered by empirical case studies, analysis of the problems that exist in practice, put forward the idea of solutions to the land requisition compensation for resettlement of peasants in relevant civil disputes arising from the settlement, Hope to benefit. The total text is composed of five parts. In this paper, the first part of the judicial practice in handling cases encountered in the Bishan County land to non-farmers on the Government to allocate self-built housing and a contract dispute with others in the category of cases, the plaintiff LU Mou, Wang Moumou, Wang Mou vs. Liu Moumou, the defendant requested confirmation of the building contract is invalid, as according to a case study on the merits of the case, the Court of First Instance to identify the facts and substance of a judgement, that dismissed the plaintiffs confirmed by the "Joint Building contract "null and void the contract claim. Based on the relevant case, summarized the case to extract the focus: the identification of the contractual nature, of the contractual effectiveness and of family agency. In this paper, the second part of such cases, the disputes of reasons, the contract form, the background and characteristics of the case. In firstintroduced to non-farmers in land disputes for self-built housing, also gave a briefing on the contract forms are: housing contract for the sale or housing pre-sale contract, partnership-building contract, joint building housing contract, funds-raised housing contracts. In introducing the relevant background, also from the relative to contract, the contract's name and main contents, subject of procedure and the request, reasons of the "funds-raised housing agreement" or "joint building contract", contract performance, and other areas described the current features such dispute cases. In this paper, the third part of disputes and differences between the views of the nature and the effectiveness of the contract, family agency about land to non-farmers self-built housing dispute cases. In cases involving the contractual nature and effectiveness of the contract , The controversy and divergent views are: that is cooperative-building contract and effective; that is a contract for the housing-sale, effectiveness of the contract have to be determined on the effectiveness of the contract, valid contract, null and void contract; that on-behalf-of building contract and effective; real estate of land after the transfer development contract and void; that the house-transferring contract and effect to be determined. Agents involved in family agency disputes and differences are: the no-right agent and no ratification, should be identified as invalid; constitute family agency, should be recognized as valid. This article ⅳ of legal theory and legal provisions on both sides on the nature of the contract and contractual effect, the family agent system, and then a clear indication of the author's point of view, I believe that such contracts, should be identified as the contract of the land allocated for the transfer of land use rights, because both parties have not submitted in after the prosecution before the People's Government has approved the right of approval for land use rights through governmern allocation transfer procedure of the relevant evidence, and the effectiveness of such contracts should be recognized as invalid. The plaintiff as his wife outside day-to-day family party the right agent, the defendant should be no reason to believe that the plaintiff as one of the spouses involved in real estate of their common property of the husband and wife constitutes apparent agency, the signing of the plaintiff cannot constitute apparent agency, signed by the plaintiff LU Mou and the defendant "funds-raised housing construction agreement," the effect of the contract should be recognized as invalid contract. This article ⅴof the view that since the prosecution in the case without the prior approval of the People's Government for approval of land use rights transfer procedure, as the transfer of land use right through governmern allocation of "building co-operation" agreements or contracts in the legal sense, the contract is null and void , and actually the loss of the largest farmers must be non-farmers. Improper handling of such cases, will trigger the petition from the group of farmers or people buying houses, stimulate intense petition. To this end, I propose to explore the nature of the sound system related to a number of ideas,and try to prevent fundamentally the allocation of land to non-farmers to self-built housing dispute.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-03
回到顶部