海龟浮上海面

Li Yulan, a painter living in Beijing, finds herself in a worrying situation. She lives in Songzhuang village, an artists' community located within the borders of Beijing municipality, but outside the city proper. Now, the contract she signed five years ago when purchasing her home has been declared void by the local court. The court order also demands that she leave her home within ninety days.

Li is not alone in her predicament: since October 2006, twelve artists have been taken to court by the farmers from whom they bought their Song village properties. These farmers had been delighted to sell their homes for what at the time were considered excellent prices, but the recent dramatic rise in property values makes them think that they got a raw deal; today, they seek to reclaim their properties.

For the more than 1,500 artists who live in Songzhuang village, this news has come as a bolt from the blue. If the court's judgment is upheld, each one will be facing the same fate as Li Yulan - given no choice but to move out of the village. They had never imagined that their contracts, whose validity was guaranteed by the local government and village head, would not receive the protection of Chinese law. In the event, the root cause of all the trouble is that the houses they bought are governed by what are informally known as "lesser property rights".

The next land revolution? -- Li Datong, OpenDemocracy

Rural citizens in China have long been practising the transfer of the usufruct or "rights of use" of their disposable properties (including but not limiting to land, houses and apartments) for an agreeable period to third parties. Those transfers are based on the fact that a rural citizen, when he/she goes into an agreement with a third party, has the "landuse (and above ground) title" which is designated by the authorities of the rural community where the said rural citizen resides.

The "landuse rights" of rural land is covered by the relevant written rules and regulations stipulated by the central (and local) government. The major one of which is "Land Administration Law" (or Tudi Guanli Fa), passed by the central government. According to the law, the basic administrative unit of the rural communities is village (or Cun). The land within the administrative boundaries of a village is collectively owned by that village (or all its registered households). The boundaries of a village's land have to be registered and submitted to the higher administrative organ for record and arbitration (clearing of disputes among villages on landuse titles), before a "certificate of landuse rights" is assigned. The land, which was divided among and assigned to its registered households, under the guidance of the village committee whose figure head supposedly was democratically elected by the village members, will then have a legitimate title.

One must not confuse the terms, "ownership of land" and "landuse rights". Bearing in mind that the ultimate ownership of all land in China, rural and urban, belongs to the State, which is a collective term like village, and should not be mixed with either the central or local government, as they are only functional organs. All individuals and organizations therefore only have the rights of use of their land title, when they are engaged into any land (or property above ground of certain land) transfer arrangement. The only different between rural and urban land is that rural land can be "collectively" used without a time limit, yet still not "freehold" by the corresponding collective owner; and urban land are all "leasehold" for a certain time period, based on such landuse purposes as industrial, commercial and residential etc.

The case of Songzhuang village seems to be a case of contract-breaching, caused by the "landuse rights" transferor. It is a case not only governed by the "Land Administration Law", but also relevant contract law and regulation. If the transferor's "landuse title" is being registered, via his/her village authority, the contract of transferral of usage of the subject land title will then be legal. Hence, the basic rights of the transferee on that contract will be legally protected. Court judgement will largely depend on how the contract is being formulated and exercised. The key would be the leasing period of that said property. I anticipate that the transferee has an upper hand.

I personally don't see this as a turning point of a "next land revolution", because of some greedy peasants who don't honour LEGAL contracts. If one defines revolution as a bottom-up social movement, with regards to the issue of land administration, I see more the possibility of a top-down incremental reform in an economy which is ruled by an authoritarian regime who is eager to merge with the international communities.


Further Reading:[list1]
[*]Li Datong: The next land revolution?
The outcome of the key contest over rural property rights will transform China yet again, says Li Datong.
[*]CCTV经济信息联播: 律师:艺术村小产权房不受法律保护
[*]南方周末: 北京宋庄画家村房产之争 房价涨农民心急要房
[*]新京报: 陷小产权纠纷 315名宋庄艺术家联名呼吁“维权”
[*]宋庄：转型中国的典型个案(《财经时报》2005年10月15日)[/list1]
(Comment crosspost at OpenDemocracy.net)