Precedent No. 89/2026/AL regarding compensation and support when the state recovers land for assets that are liquidated houses for residential use on state agency land was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on May 21, 2026, and announced under Decision No. 162/QĐ-CA dated May 29, 2026, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a Precedent?
A precedent consists of arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Court regarding a specific case, selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and announced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as a precedent for courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HĐTP)
Selected precedents must meet the following criteria:
– Clarify legal provisions that are subject to different interpretations, analyze and explain legal issues and events, and indicate the principles, guidelines for handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrate fairness for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– Be exemplary;
– Provide guidance for the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 89/2026/AL regarding compensation and support when the state recovers land for assets that are liquidated houses for residential use on state agency land
2.1. Source of the Precedent
Supervisory Review Decision No. 09/2023/HC-GĐT dated April 13, 2023, regarding the administrative case “Complaint against administrative decisions, administrative acts in land management and claim for damages” by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court between the plaintiff Mr. Nguyen Duc H and the defendants, Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province, People’s Committee of T1 district, P province; with 02 related parties.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraph 5 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.
2.2. Overview of the Precedent’s Content
– Precedent Situation:
A state agency liquidated a house built on its office land, without an agreement on land use right transfer, before the competent authority issued a decision to recover this land. The buyer used the house for residential purposes. During use, the buyer created and renovated new assets on the land. Subsequently, the competent state agency recovered this land.
– Legal Solution:
In this case, the Court must determine that when the state recovers land, the buyer of assets on the land is not eligible for land compensation but is considered for compensation and support for the assets on the recovered land.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
Clause 3, Article 43 of the Land Law of Vietnam 2003 (corresponding to Clause 1, Article 89 of the Land Law of Vietnam 2013, Clause 1, Article 102 of the Land Law of Vietnam 2024).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Purchase of liquidated house for residential use”; “Land recovery”; “Compensation, support for assets on recovered land”.
CASE CONTENT:
In 1991, Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s wife, Ms. Nguyen Thi C, was transferred to the People’s Court of T district, Vinh Phu province (old). Upon taking up her new position, Ms. C was allocated a working room and a residential room by the agency. Subsequently, Mr. H requested and was granted permission by the agency to build an additional shop and some other auxiliary structures.
In 1996, the People’s Court of T district moved to a new headquarters, so Mr. H applied to purchase a liquidated house and was approved by the People’s Court of T district to sell him 03 rooms for 4,000,000 VND (Decision No. 03/QD-TA dated April 20, 1998, of the People’s Court of T district).
On March 26, 2008, the People’s Committee of T1 district issued Decision No. 344/QD-UBND on the recovery and change of land use purpose for 1,430m² of agency headquarters land managed by the People’s Committee of H town to serve the allocation of residential land to households and individuals in 2008 in H town, T1 district, converting 1,384m² of land into residential land and 46m² into irrigation land. The aforementioned recovered land area was subsequently handed over to the People’s Committee of H town for management to prepare residential land allocation dossiers for households and individuals, to be submitted to the People’s Committee of T1 district for consideration and approval. On April 4, 2008, Mr. H continued to submit an application for land legalization.
On March 2, 2009, the People’s Committee of T1 district issued Decision No. 205/QD-UBND on the recovery of 1,384m² of residential land managed by the People’s Committee of H town to assign it to the District Land Use Right Auction Council to organize an auction of residential land use rights (hereinafter referred to as Decision No. 205/QD-UBND). Mr. H disagreed and filed a complaint.
The People’s Committee of T1 district and the People’s Committee of P province successively rejected Mr. H’s complaints in Decisions No. 1825/QD-UBND dated October 22, 2010, and Decision No. 1445/QD-UBND dated April 26, 2011. On July 4, 2011, the People’s Committee of T1 district issued Decision No. 787/QD-UBND on the forced site clearance for assets of Mr. H’s household (hereinafter referred to as Decision No. 787/QD-UBND).
Mr. H argued that the aforementioned Decisions No. 205/QD-UBND, 1825/QD-UBND, 1445/QD-UBND, and 787/QD-UBND were illegal, infringing upon his family’s legitimate rights and interests because he was eligible to apply for a land use right certificate as stipulated in Point d, Clause 1, Clause 6, Article 50 of the Land Law 2003; Article 8 of Decree No. 198/2004/ND-CP dated December 3, 2004, and Decree No. 84/2007/ND-CP dated May 25, 2007, of the Government; furthermore, the procedure for issuing Decision No. 205/QD-UBND by the People’s Committee of T1 district was not in accordance with legal regulations as land use rights were auctioned before site clearance. The complaint resolution decisions of the People’s Committee of T1 district and the People’s Committee of P province contained many contradictions and were not factual. When issuing the complaint resolution decision, the People’s Committee of P province also did not send this decision to Mr. and Mrs. H. According to legal provisions, he had the right to sue against Decisions No. 1825/QD-UBND and 1445/QD-UBND which had not yet taken legal effect, but the People’s Committee of T1 district had issued and enforced the seizure of his family’s assets, which infringed upon his family’s legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, on August 18, 2011, September 5, 2011, September 12, 2011, and November 29, 2011, Mr. Nguyen Duc H filed a lawsuit and supplementary lawsuit requesting the Court to annul Decision No. 205/QD-UBND dated March 2, 2009, of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province; Decision No. 1825/QD-UBND dated October 22, 2010, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of T1 district; Decision No. 1445/QD-UBND dated April 26, 2011, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province; Decision No. 787/QD-UBND dated July 4, 2011, of the People’s Committee of T1 district; Notice No. 04/TB-UBND dated August 3, 2011, of the People’s Committee of H town II, T1 district, P province; and requesting the People’s Committee of T1 district to compensate him 942,500,000 VND for damages caused by the forced seizure and 300,000,000 VND for damage to his honor and dignity.
Defendant’s opinion:
The defendant, Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province, stated:
Mr. H’s request for consideration of a land use right certificate for the land area where liquidated assets (03 working rooms) of the People’s Court of T district were purchased in 1998, as stipulated in Point d, Clause 1, Article 50 of the Land Law 2003, is unfounded because: from 1984 to 2007, the user of parcel No. 57, map sheet No. 19, was the People’s Court of T1 district; Mr. H was not the legal land user for the area associated with the liquidated assets. Decision No. 03/QD-TA of the People’s Court of T district and the contract for the sale of liquidated house between the Court and Mr. H affirmed that it was a sale of liquidated assets, not indicating that the liquidated assets were residential houses attached to residential land as Mr. H complained. Mr. H is also not a person whose land was recovered by the state, nor is he an object of land compensation as stipulated in Article 8 of Decree No. 197/2004/ND-CP dated December 29, 2004, of the Government, nor is he an object for consideration of a certificate as stipulated in Article 50 of the Land Law 2003. The People’s Committee of T1 district and the People’s Committee of H town organized the implementation of planning and auction of land use rights in the old People’s Court area to invest in infrastructure and socio-economic development of the locality in accordance with the land use planning and plan for the period 2002-2010 approved by the People’s Committee of P province. Therefore, the Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province issued Decision No. 1445/QD-UBND dated April 26, 2011, resolving Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s complaint, which is in accordance with legal provisions.
Requested the People’s Court of Phu Tho province to dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s lawsuit.
The defendant, People’s Committee of T1 district, stated:
The People’s Committee of T1 district received Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s complaint regarding the People’s Committee of T1 district’s land recovery in 2009 in the area of the old People’s Court of T district, where his family had purchased a liquidated house in 1998, but he was not compensated for the house and land. Mr. H requested the legalization of residential land for his family in the aforementioned land area because he purchased a liquidated house attached to the land and was using it stably. The People’s Committee of T1 district affirmed that Decision No. 03/QD-TA of 1998 by the People’s Court of T district stated the liquidation of a house, not a residential house attached to residential land, so this Decision is not a document for liquidating or pricing a residential house attached to residential land according to the Land Law. Therefore, the District People’s Committee did not accept Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s lawsuit.
In Administrative First-Instance Judgment No. 23/2018/HC-ST dated November 15, 2018, the People’s Court of Phu Tho province decided:
1. Dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s lawsuit requesting the annulment of Decision No. 205/QD-UBND dated March 2, 2009, of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province; Decision No. 1825/QD-UBND dated October 22, 2010, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province; Decision No. 1445/QD-UBND dated April 26, 2011, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province; Decision No. 787/QD-UBND dated July 4, 2011, of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province.
2. Dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s request to compel the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province, to compensate him 942,500,000 VND for property damage caused by the illegal forced seizure decision.
3. Dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s request to compel the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province, to compensate him 300,000,000 VND for damage to his honor and dignity.
4. Suspend Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s lawsuit against Notice No. 04/TB-UBND dated August 3, 2011, of the People’s Committee of H town, T1 district, P province.
The first-instance court also ruled on court fees and the right to appeal.
On November 18, 2018, and November 26, 2018, Mr. Nguyen Duc H and Ms. Nguyen Thi C filed appeals against the aforementioned administrative first-instance judgment.
In Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 357/2019/HC-PT dated December 13, 2019, the High People’s Court in Hanoi decided:
1. Partially accept the appeal of Mr. Nguyen Duc H and Ms. Nguyen Thi C and amend part of the decision of Administrative First-Instance Judgment No. 23/2018/HC-ST dated November 15, 2018, of the People’s Court of Phu Tho province. Rule:
1.1 Dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s lawsuit requesting the annulment of Decision No. 205/QD-UBND dated March 2, 2009, of the People’s Committee of T1, P province; Decision No. 1825/QD-UBND dated October 22, 2010, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province; Decision No. 1445/QD-UBND dated April 26, 2011, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province; Decision No. 787/QD-UBND dated July 4, 2011, of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province.
1.2 Dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s request to compel the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province, to compensate him 400,000,000 VND for property damage caused by the illegal forced seizure decision.
1.3 Dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s request to compel the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province, to compensate him 300,000,000 VND for damage to his honor and dignity.
1.4 Suspend Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s lawsuit against Notice No. 04/TB-UBND dated August 3, 2011, of the People’s Committee of H town, T1 district, P province.
Compel the People’s Committee of H town to return the value of raw materials belonging to Mr. H and Ms. C, amounting to 272,000 VND, which is the value of raw materials seized according to the asset valuation record dated November 2, 2011, currently held in the budget managed by the People’s Committee of H town.
The appellate court also ruled on court fees.
On May 10, 2020, Mr. Nguyen Duc H and Ms. Nguyen Thi C filed a petition requesting a supervisory review of the aforementioned administrative appellate judgment.
In Supervisory Review Protest Decision No. 29/2022/KN-HC dated December 6, 2022, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 357/2019/HC-PT dated December 13, 2019, of the High People’s Court in Hanoi; requesting the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a supervisory review, annul Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 357/2019/HC-PT dated December 13, 2019, of the High People’s Court in Hanoi and Administrative First-Instance Judgment No. 23/2018/HC-ST dated November 15, 2018, of the People’s Court of Phu Tho province regarding the part “Dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s lawsuit requesting the annulment of Decision No. 1825/QD-UBND dated October 22, 2010, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province; Decision No. 1445/QD-UBND dated April 26, 2011, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province; Decision No. 787/QD-UBND dated July 4, 2011, of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province”; and remand the case file to the People’s Court of Phu Tho province for re-trial in accordance with legal provisions.
At the supervisory review hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy requested the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court to accept the supervisory review protest decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
COURT’S OPINION:
[1] On April 20, 1998, the People’s Court of T district, Phu Tho province, issued Decision No. 03/QD-TA regarding the liquidation sale of lot No. 07 – Asset Liquidation Diagram, comprising 03 rooms of the People’s Court of T district, to Mr. Nguyen Duc H for 4,000,000 VND. Mr. H paid the money and received the liquidated assets.
[2] In 1999, T district was divided into two districts, T1 and T2 (the liquidated assets after the administrative boundary division belonged to T1 district). Due to no longer needing to use it, on October 4, 2004, the People’s Court of T1 district submitted Report No. 100/TT.TD requesting to return the area of 3,049m² of headquarters land belonging to parcel No. 09, map sheet 5A, to the People’s Committee of H town for management and use. On November 20, 2007, the People’s Committee of P province issued Decision No. 3066/QD-UBND recovering 1,430m² of non-agricultural land (old headquarters) and Land Use Right Certificate No. A-366346 of the People’s Court of T1 district; assigning the aforementioned non-agricultural land to the People’s Committee of H town, T1 district, to manage the land fund and put it into use, after land use planning and plans are approved by competent authorities; the People’s Committee of H town is responsible for compensating damages to the household currently managing and using the recovered land according to current regulations.
[3] Based on the land use planning and plan in H town for the period 2002-2010, and based on the dossier requesting land recovery and change of use purpose to serve the allocation of residential land to households and individuals in 2008 in H town, T1 district, on March 26, 2008, the People’s Committee of T1 district issued Decision No. 344/QD-UBND on the recovery and change of land use purpose for 1,430m² of land managed by the People’s Committee of H town; assigning the recovered land area to the People’s Committee of H town for management, preparing residential land allocation dossiers for households and individuals to be submitted to the District People’s Committee for approval to serve the allocation of residential land to households and individuals, converting 1,384m² of land into residential land and 46m² into irrigation land. On March 2, 2009, the People’s Committee of T1 district issued Decision No. 205/QD-UBND recovering the aforementioned 1,384m² of residential land to proceed with the auction of residential land use rights for households and individuals; the assets purchased by Mr. H through liquidation were also within the aforementioned recovered land area. Decisions No. 344/QD-UBND dated March 26, 2008, and Decision No. 205/QD-UBND dated March 2, 2009, both stated: The District Economic Block Compensation and Site Clearance Council directed the compensation and site clearance for the People’s Committee of H town for households with land and assets on the recovered land.
[4] The People’s Committee of P province’s recovery of the agency headquarters land because the People’s Court of T1 district no longer needed to use it was in accordance with Clause 2, Article 38 of the Land Law 2003 and falls under the case where land compensation is not required as stipulated in Point a, Clause 1, Article 43 of the Land Law 2003. Since Mr. Nguyen Duc H was only a buyer of liquidated assets, not a buyer of assets attached to land, the first-instance court and the appellate court’s determination that Mr. H did not have recovered land and was not eligible for a Land Use Right Certificate, thus not being compensated for land, is well-founded.
[5] Although the land user whose land was recovered was the People’s Court of T1 district, Mr. H was the owner of assets on the land (03 liquidated rooms purchased from the People’s Court of T district); Decision on liquidation sale of house dated April 20, 1998, of the People’s Court of T district stated that after payment, Mr. H would have ownership of these 03 rooms, and the liquidation sale contract on the same day between the People’s Court of T district and Mr. H also indicated that Mr. H was responsible for registration procedures with competent state agencies. Therefore, there is a basis to determine that Mr. H’s acquisition of the 03 liquidated rooms was not a purchase of materials but was purchased by Mr. H for residential use, and these 03 rooms were purchased by Mr. H through liquidation before the state decided to recover the land from the People’s Court of T1 district and before land use planning and plans were in place in H town. According to Clause 3, Article 43 of the Land Law 2003: “Persons whose land is recovered as stipulated in Clause 1 but not in Clause 2 of this Article shall be compensated for damages to assets attached to the recovered land,” therefore, after the land recovery decision, the People’s Committee of T1 district should have inventoried Mr. H’s assets to have a basis for considering compensation or support for assets on the recovered land (if any) to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of Mr. H’s family.
[6] On July 4, 2011, the People’s Committee of T1 district issued Decision No. 787/QD-UBND on the forced site clearance for assets of Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s household to hand over to households that won the land use right auction in H town, T1 district, in which the People’s Committee of T1 district applied Decree No. 37/2005/ND-CP dated March 18, 2005, of the Government regulating procedures for applying coercive measures to enforce administrative sanction decisions; Decree No. 84/2007/ND-CP dated May 25, 2007, and Decree No. 69/2009/ND-CP dated December 13, 2009, of the Government applicable to cases where the state recovers land for national defense, security, national interest, public interest, economic development, which is incorrect because: In this case, the state recovered land because the land user no longer needed to use it, and the competent authority had not yet made any administrative violation record or administrative sanction decision against Mr. H’s family. Furthermore, the content of Decision No. 787/QD-UBND dated July 4, 2011, of the People’s Committee of T1 district stated: “Forced site clearance for assets of Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s household in the land area of the old People’s Court of T district, zone 6 (T3 zone), H town, T1 district, P province, including: Three rooms Mr. H purchased through liquidation from the old People’s Court of T district (now the People’s Court of T1 district) and additional constructions to hand over the land to households and individuals who won the auction” but did not examine or clarify what additional constructions Mr. H’s family had, when they were built, and whether there were any other assets besides the 03 liquidated rooms; while Mr. H stated that there was also 01 shop, a dug well, a kitchen, 02 rice trees, and 01 jackfruit tree on the land. At the same time, Report No. 22/BC-UBND on site clearance compensation work in the old District People’s Court area dated April 8, 2009, of the People’s Committee of H town also confirmed the current status after the households purchased liquidated houses from the People’s Court of T district, there were repairs and additional constructions. After the forced seizure decision, the People’s Committee of H town issued Plan No. 08/KH-UBND dated July 6, 2011, on forced site clearance for Mr. H’s household’s assets, also identifying additional constructions, including 01 shop on the land.
[7] On August 3, 2011, the People’s Committee of H town issued Notice No. 04/TB-UBND on the forced seizure plan and implementation time; Mr. H received this notice. On August 9, 2011, before the forced site clearance was carried out, the People’s Committee of H town only proceeded to make an inventory record of Mr. H’s household’s assets but determined that there were no other assets on the land besides the 03 rooms, which was inconsistent with reality. Mr. H was present at the time of the forced seizure but then left without signing the site clearance enforcement record. On the same day, August 9, 2011, after the forced seizure had been carried out, the People’s Committee of H town made an inventory record of the remaining assets (including wooden doors, bricks, etc.) and by November 2, 2011, proceeded to appraise the assets and simultaneously liquidate these assets for 272,000 VND; depositing the aforementioned amount into the public fund managed by the People’s Committee of H town is incorrect, affecting the legitimate rights and interests regarding the assets owned by Mr. H’s family.
[8] When Mr. H filed a complaint, the Chairman of the People’s Committee of T1 district issued Decision No. 1825/QD-UBND dated October 22, 2010, dismissing Mr. H’s complaint that the People’s Committee of T1 district recovered land in the area of the old People’s Court of T district, where his family had purchased a liquidated house in 1998 but was not compensated for the land, which was well-founded; however, the Chairman of the People’s Committee of T1 district had not thoroughly considered and resolved issues related to assets on the land, thus not ensuring Mr. H’s legitimate rights and interests. Decision No. 1445/QD-UBND dated April 26, 2011, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province, which upheld the content of Decision No. 1825/QD-UBND of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of T1 district, was also incorrect.
[9] When Mr. H filed a lawsuit requesting the annulment of decisions on land recovery, complaint resolution decisions, and notices on site clearance enforcement plans, the first-instance court dismissed Mr. H’s lawsuit without considering the property rights of Mr. H’s family on the recovered and seized land, which was insufficiently grounded. The appellate court’s partial amendment of the first-instance judgment, compelling the People’s Committee of H town to return the value of seized raw materials worth 272,000 VND (which is the value of remaining assets after auction), was also incorrect.
For the above reasons;
DECISION:
Based on Point a, Clause 2, Article 266, Clause 3, Article 272, and Article 274 of the Administrative Procedure Law 2015:
1. Accept Supervisory Review Protest Decision No. 29/2022/KN-HC dated December 6, 2022, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court against Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 357/2019/HC-PT dated December 13, 2019, of the High People’s Court in Hanoi.
2. Annul Administrative Appellate Judgment No. 357/2019/HC-PT dated December 13, 2019, of the High People’s Court in Hanoi and Administrative First-Instance Judgment No. 23/2018/HC-ST dated November 15, 2018, of the People’s Court of Phu Tho province regarding the part “Dismiss Mr. Nguyen Duc H’s lawsuit requesting the annulment of Decision No. 1825/QD-UBND dated October 22, 2010, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province; Decision No. 1445/QD-UBND dated April 26, 2011, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of P province; Decision No. 787/QD-UBND dated July 4, 2011, of the People’s Committee of T1 district, P province”.
3. Remand the case file to the People’s Court of Phu Tho province for re-trial in accordance with legal provisions.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[5] Although the land user whose land was recovered was the People’s Court of T1 district, Mr. H was the owner of assets on the land (03 liquidated rooms purchased from the People’s Court of T district); Decision on liquidation sale of house dated April 20, 1998, of the People’s Court of T district stated that after payment, Mr. H would have ownership of these 03 rooms, and the liquidation sale contract on the same day between the People’s Court of T district and Mr. H also indicated that Mr. H was responsible for registration procedures with competent state agencies. Therefore, there is a basis to determine that Mr. H’s acquisition of the 03 liquidated rooms was not a purchase of materials but was purchased by Mr. H for residential use, and these 03 rooms were purchased by Mr. H through liquidation before the state decided to recover the land from the People’s Court of T1 district and before land use planning and plans were in place in H town. According to Clause 3, Article 43 of the Land Law 2003: “Persons whose land is recovered as stipulated in Clause 1 but not in Clause 2 of this Article shall be compensated for damages to assets attached to the recovered land,” therefore, after the land recovery decision, the People’s Committee of T1 district should have inventoried Mr. H’s assets to have a basis for considering compensation or support for assets on the recovered land (if any) to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of Mr. H’s family.”
* This precedent was proposed by the Department of Supervision and Inspection IV of the Supreme People’s Court.
