Invasion of desert beaches after the transformation of gooddoors: the path of salt land agriculture enterprises for 20 years

From investing in tens of millions of enterprises to building academic workstations, from UN-recognized salt soil agriculture samples to rights defenses, the life trajectory of "China's good people" Zhang Jianping is full of contradictions.

In 2006, Jiangsu Province Salt City Green Garden Salt Earth Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the "Green Garden Company") rented more than 3,000 acres of saltwater beaches in the county, conducted salt soil agriculture research and development, and built the country's first coastal salt soil agriculture enterprise academic workstation.H, after painting the desert beaches into cultivable land, others were illegally seized and rented profits.The company's continuous alert has never seen criminal cases; through civil cases to defend rights, and in more than a decade many lawsuits, the long and difficult way to defend rights.

“The Good People of China” Zhang Jian.

It was not until April 2025 and May 2026 that the Coast Guard Court ruled that the two disputed real land controllers, Hu Yongqing, returned the land and Fang Yongqing returned the pond. But the amount of compensation supported by the court was far from the actual losses claimed by the enterprise, and the research project had long been interrupted, and investment opportunities and development opportunities were difficult to recover.

When enterprises responded to the hiring of investments, invested in the transformation of the desert beaches and the development of science and technology agriculture, but for a long time failed to effectively safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, Zhang Jianping issued "land is not better than robbing land".

* by *

and 01

* 1,700 acres of land for battle

* by *

In 2006, under the financing of the Binhai County Water Department, Green Garden Company leased more than 3,000 acres of saltwater beaches on both sides of the Huai River into the sea waterway to build new varieties of salt-resistant plants for cultivation and saltwater agriculture research base.

After continuous investment and improvement, this originally desolate salt base gradually turned into cultivable land. The company has cultivated several new varieties of salt base plants with independent intellectual property rights, established academic workstations, was named by the Jiangsu Provincial Farm and Forestry Hall as "salt resistant vegetable and technology demonstration park", the company founder Zhang Chongqing also received "China good people" and other honors, salt soil agriculture project has also been recognized by relevant UN agencies.

Since 2008, Hu Long Army, Fang Long Rock and other people and some local villagers have continued to seize the land rented by Greenwood Company.

“These people in various names forcibly occupy land, destroy production facilities, expel staff, and rent the land they occupy for profit. By 2014, the land leased by the company was almost exhausted, and the company’s research achievements and business base accumulated over the years were severely damaged!”

Zhang Zhong said that in the face of continued illegal abuse, the company annually the case to the public security organs, but never received a criminal case.

In previous cases involving hundreds of villagers taking over land, the Jiangsu High Court has clearly determined that the "Land Lease Agreement" signed between the Huai River and Huai River River Coast Management has been valid and confirmed that the Huai River Company enjoys the right to use the land in accordance with the law. As the land lease party, the Huai River Administration has also issued written explanations to the courts and political law organs on several occasions, clearly stating that the land lease is the only lawful user of the uninhabited beach area, and there is no dispute in the actual transfer of the site.

Nevertheless, the dispute surrounding the illegal occupation of about 700 acres of land by more than 10 people, including the Hu Long Army, has caught the road to the civil rights of the company.

Official "Situation Explanation" provided by respondents

Since 2015, the company has filed civil lawsuits against illegal invaders. Among them, in the case of excluding the interference of the Hue Long Army, the Binhai County Court rejected its lawsuits in September 2016; after the company applied for re-examination, the Salt City Court in July 2022 decided to revoke the original judgment and re-examination. After that, the Binhai County Court rejected the company's appeal; after the company's appeal, the case was re-examined once again.

"The facts are not complicated, the legal relationship is also clear, the High Court has already had relevant judgments, but the case is delayed and delayed."Zhang Chongqing believes that the long-term repeated trial makes the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises delayed and impossible to obtain remedy.

Moreover, it was difficult for him to accept that the illegal invaders continued to make illegal profits during this period. According to its statistics, only one Hu long army man gained millions of yuan by transferring the land involved in the case, and the related invasions have long not been effectively investigated.

“If lawful lease, investment in development and scientific research innovation are not protected, and the invaders of land can continue to profit, then the ultimate signal is that it is better to steal land, to abide by law than to violate the law.”

A case of elimination of barriers around 100 acres of land has thus been delayed for a decade.

On April 16, 2025, with the title "China's good people" 1700 acres of land were organized looted, 17 years of no case was filed," Zhang Zhang openly disclosed the encounters of Chongqing. on the same month, the Shandong county court finally made a serious judgment.

But in the view of Zhang Chongqing, this late victory case for a decade is far from sufficient to compensate for the lost time, opportunity and development space of the enterprise.

2nd *

The land has been taken back, who will bear the loss?

* by *

The bushy county court found that Hu Long Army's argument for the "30 acres of land is contracted to malaria patients, and the remaining 70 acres are self-decommissioned" cannot be established. related malaria patients have previously accepted compensation from the coastal sea administration, themselves do not enjoy the lawful right to dispose of the land in question, and have no right to lease the land to others; and Hu Long Army is not entitled to continue to use the land, even if it has actually been cultivated, after the land has been incorporated into government management and leased according to law.

The court believes that, whether factually or legally, the Hu Jang Army has no legal basis for possession of the land in question, and it is neither the land owner nor the legal administrator, should withdraw and return the land in question.

However, in the issue of compensation, the court did not fully support the company's claim.

The company argued that Hu long army compensation for the loss of land occupation in the period from September 2011 to September 2023, 56.6 thousand yuan, and continued to pay land occupation fees according to the standard of 600 yuan per acre per year. In this regard, the county court of Binhai considered that the land under the lease agreement should be used for the development and cultivation of salt-resistant plants such as Haipoon, and the contract explicitly prohibited the transfer of rent. But the company had transferred part of the land to others to plant crops and obtain profits, objectively changed the purpose of the contract agreed, and also did not comply with the flood management requirements.

A witness stated what the Ho Chi Minh Army did.

On the basis of the calculation of the losses, the court changed the land lease and reasonable operating income actually paid by the company to the coastal administration as the basis for the calculation. In which, the lease loss between September 2011 and April 2025 was 10.81 million yuan, the expected operating income loss was 13.6 million yuan, two total 24.41 million yuan. At the same time, given that Hu Long Army has not yet returned the land, the court ordered that from April 26, 2025 until the date of actual return of the land, according to the 200 yuan standard per acre annually, the company pay the land ownership fee.

The Court of Appeal said that although the court confirmed the illegal occupation of the Ho Chi Minh Army, but its claimed loss of 56.6 million yuan was compressed to 24.41 million yuan.The Court of Appeal on its "violation of lease, change the use of land" declared that the purpose of the land itself is to plan the plant plant cultivation and development, the relevant business activities always comply with the requirements of the water and river management department; really change the use of the land, damage the original plan, it is the activities of Ho Chi Minh Army and others after the seizure of the land.

The company believes that Hu Long Army continued to illegally occupy the land for more than ten years, multiple negotiations, reports and lawsuits refused to withdraw, the subjective malicious intent is very obvious. The judgment of the first instance only according to the annual standard of 200 yuan per hectare calculated after the use of the use fee, objectively formed the situation of "unlawful, no cost, the acquisition of profits", it is difficult to reflect the protection of legal operators. the long-term illegal occupation of the land resulted in the company can not continue to obtain existing operating profits, the part of the gain should be calculated according to the actual rental price of Hu Long Army.

In the first instance, the judgment ruled that "growing high-rise crops affected flooding" was the reason for denying rent income, the company also raised objections. It believes that the actual cultivation of rice and wheat in the case of the land does not belong to the high-rise crops affecting the flooding of the river, the court accordingly greatly lowered the compensation criteria, belongs to the fact and the law application error. The coastal court has long supported the looting of land and did not compensate for losses, resulting in the 2014 hundreds of people to loot all of their land, its years of scientific research results were destroyed, losses were terrible, and the investment environment was very bad.

On June 2, 2026, the Salt City Court issued a final judgment, rejected the appeal request of the company, andined the first-instance judgment.

To make Zhang Chung Bank more depressing is that since 2012 until now it has been 14 years, of the 16 cases of the same nature, currently only Hu Long Army case has been appealed and repeated trial in the case of the company, the coastal court has supported the claim of the company in accordance with the law, the rest of the cases are still in the case of the county court of the coastal court to support the violations of the invaders.

“Why is the path of defence so difficult with such clear illegal facts?”

and 03

Compensation dispute behind 210 acres of fish pond

* by *

Just as the dust fell in the Hu Long Army case, the dispute between the Greenhouse Company and Fang Rong Rock about 210 acres of beach coating land also saw new progress.

The company said that according to the Land Lease Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement, the company obtained the rights to use 210 acres of land in the case until 2036, 2039 years. Since then, the company has contracted some of the fish ponds to Qinghai and Qingdao. The two contractors are frequently blocked in the course of business, the land in question has been controlled by Fanglong Rock and transferred to others to engage in breeding activities, hence the exclusion of obstacles.

During the trial, Van Long岩 put forward a completely different statement. It argued that he had already in 2001 obtained the 50 year business rights in the case through the East and Country Government, then received the agricultural department's written confirmation, and continued to develop the project as a contractor, so the land in question has the right to use and the right to operate in accordance with the law. Van Long岩 denied the existence of "land robbery" behavior, saying that Zhang Hua, Cao Cao Zhang was initially in their agreement to enter the land in question to cultivate. Later it was discovered that the two had leased the land to themselves, and paid the contract fee to the Green Garden Company, and decided to recover the right to operate the fish pond.

For the opposite claims of both sides, the bounhai county court believes that the tender funding documents submitted by Fanglong岩, the declaration of the administrative department and the demolition compensation agreement, neither can clearly correspond to the disputed land in this case, nor is it sufficient to counter the land ownership proof held by the lake management.

The court determined that the behavior of Fang Rongang to prevent Jiang Huang and Cao Dao from continuing to operate and actually control the land in question has constituted an obstacle to the ownership, use and income rights of the company, and should bear the responsibility for returning the land.

However, as in the case of Hu Jang, the focus of the dispute between the two sides was ultimately on the amount of compensation. The company argued that the long-term control of the land involved in the case and used for operating profits should be calculated according to the annual standard of 32 million yuan reflected in its agreement with third parties. But the Beach County Court believes that the price includes special factors such as debt deduction and can not directly equal the market rental price.

After the price of the transfer contract previously signed with Qingwei and Qingdao, the situation of similar land operations in the surrounding area and the actual business model of both sides, the court decided to calculate the land occupation fee according to the 600 yuan per acre per year.

On May 13, 2026, the coastal court ruled that Fang Long Rock should return 210 acres of land in the case within 15 days after the judgment came into force; at the same time, from July 1, 2020 to the date of actual return of the land, according to the 600 yuan standard per acre annually to pay the land occupation fee to the company.

The company once again raised objections and appealed. it believes that the judgment of the first instance, although it confirmed its legitimate rights and interests in the land in question and determined that Feng Shui constituted an infringement, but in the loss assessment was clearly low, failed to truly reflect the market value of the land and operating gains.

The company is the first coastal salt land agricultural enterprise academic workstation in the country.

Green Coffee Company pointed out that the land concerned is the beach coast painted special aquaculture land, long-term used for the breeding of high added value water products such as turtles, white pair of crumbs, crabs, etc., its yield level is much higher than the ordinary agricultural land. in recent years, similar breeding beach paint flow market price generally reaches more than 1500 yuan per acre per year, and the court in the absence of market investigation, not entrusted professional assessment, judgment compensation, clearly deviates from the market price.

The company believes that the subjective malicious intention of the land is obvious, even when Wang Huang and Cao Dai know that they have paid the contract fee to the company, if the amount of compensation is much lower than the actual operating income, it is not different to allow the infringer to continue to profit from the illegal occupation of the land. In addition, the court has not fully embodied the "fill-up principle" in the compensation for infringement damages.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, the company requested that the Salmon City Central Court to collect the local coastal coastal coating farmland guidance price, or entrust the professional agency to assess the value of the land market lease in question, and accordingly re-establish the compensation criteria. At the same time, the company believes that Fang Rong Rock has effectively prevented its use of land since 2019, and requested to anticipate the calculation of the occupation fee until January 1, 2020.

At the time of publication, the case was still under trial.

In several other cases, the contractual agreement signed with the operators is clearly agreed on: "During the period of the contract, due to the need for new infrastructure investment and costs of production, the contracting party (leaseholder) is to bear on its own; the expiry of the contract, the property rights after the investment shall be reimbursed to the ownership of the company."

“In December 2024, it coincided with the imposition of the second phase of the construction port of the Huai River Inland Waterway Project.Three tenants violated the contract to seize land and affiliated facilities, the demolition office to promote the construction of the project, the compensation for the facilities was not handed over by the land owner (the Huai River Inland Waterway Project Administration) for disposal, nor was it paid to the legitimate owners (the Huai Company), but the government of the Huai River Port Town would compensate the three people who illegally seized land and facilities!”

For this and the same administrative act of encouraging "unlawful zero cost, seizure of profits", the company immediately submitted an administrative application to the county government. The response of the county government failed to support the application of the county government. After review, the Salt City government revoked the administrative response of the county government and ordered it to re-execute its duties. On January 19, 2026, the county government again issued the "Response", but the content of the previous "Response" was not substantially different, "not yet in force with a logical error of the judgment refused to perform the compensation placement duties."

For its "serious errors in the content and illegal procedures" the company had submitted a reconsideration application again in late August.

Tagged: handwriting

As a "good man" in China and a pioneer in salt land agriculture, the hardships in 20 years have touched the most central issue of building a business environment: whether the government's promises can ultimately be fulfilled; whether the rights obtained by enterprises in accordance with the law can ultimately be protected.

Over the years, governments at all levels have continuously pushed forward the reform of optimizing the business environment. Whether it is the “Optimization of the Business Environment Action Plan” in Jiangsu Province or the series of initiatives to create a market, rule of law, and internationalization of the first-class business environment in Salt City, they have repeatedly emphasized one key word – the rule of law.

In the end, the business environment is not to reduce a few approval links, not to introduce preferential policies, but to make investors believe that as long as it operates in accordance with the law, its legitimate rights and interests will not be infringed; once infringed, it can be remedied in a timely manner.

Looking at the encounter of Zhang Jian, the most disturbing is precisely this anticipated loss.

If an enterprise invests tens of millions of yuan to turn the desert beach into a good field, but ultimately can not effectively prevent other people from occupying it; if the High Court has confirmed that the contract is legally valid, the tenant has long demonstrated that the enterprise has a legitimate right to use it, and the relevant disputes can still be repeated lawsuits, long-lasting; if the invader has long-lasting profits, and the rightholder has long-lasting rights, then the injured is not only the enterprise, but all potential investors' confidence in the local rule of law environment.

For companies, market losses are acceptable, and technical failures can be repeated, but if the realization of a legitimate right depends on a lengthy and unpredictable defence process, any hiring promise will lose its conviction.

by *

Becoming a private enterprise in the name of the Chinese-Russian border streets, assets are eaten by state-owned enterprises and governments

* by *

The case of "internal contractual profits accused of corruption" by the Military Examining Institute, questioning the 20-year state-owned contractual system

* by *

Companies sued for tens of millions of yuan, the Hubei Shenyang County Government and the Court Coordination Committee were accused of interference in the trial

* by *

Qingdao "bad" district behind the scenes now 300 million funds, official ten years not pursued

* by *

Alaning state-owned land has been in breach of contract for 18 years, developers still refuse to deliver after paying compensation