While the controversial land conflict case in Hai Phong City’s Tien Lang District is pending resolution at a meeting to be chaired by the Prime Minister on February 10, a former district official has explained the related land allocation term.
Yesterday, Tuoi Tre spoke at home with Luu Quang Yen, former chairman of the district People’s Committee from 1992-1998, who in 1993 held the main role in allocating land to Doan Van Vuon – who acted violently against the district’s withdrawal of his 40-ha aquaculture land last month, causing injuries to 6 police officers.
In the meeting Yen explained why the authorities applied a term of just 14 years to Vuon, instead of 20 years in accordance with the Land Law.
In 1993, the authorities carried out land allocation according to Circular 05 of the Fisheries Ministry and the Land and Public Works General Department, Yen said.
Under the circular, the maximum term for land allocation is 15 years, and at the time of allocating the land to Vuon, we did not know of any other legal document except that circular, he said.
We applied a term of 14 years to Vuon since we anticipated that one more year would be taken for Vuon’s preparation and necessary procedures before he could actually return the land.
Asked why an adjustment was not made to Vuon’s land term after the Government issued Decree 64 regulating that a 20-year term be applied to agricultural and aquaculture land, Yen said Vuon’s land was within the area of a sea-encroaching embankment project and that the 14-year term was suitable for such a project.
On the other hand, the Decree also stipulates that alluvial land on river banks are subject to management and use by local authorities’ decisions, depending on actual conditions.
When we handed the land over to Vuon, we told him that he would have to return the land after 14 years of use and he agreed to this before receiving the land, Yen said.
Asked why the authorities have not included compensation to Vuon in the land withdrawal decision imposed on him, Yen brought forward four reasons.
First, the authorities and Vuon have mutually agreed that compensation would be paid only to lands of which the terms of use could not be extended, not to lands subject to a term extension.
Secondly, Vuon’s family had earned profit from their business operations on the land for 14 years.
Thirdly, Vuon and his family had also benefited from the State’s investments in construction works in the area that included their land.
And lastly, the authorities wanted to harmonize the Vuon’s interests with those of other local residents. Vuon had not had to pay any land rental, while others did annually after they won bids to lease land.
Print
