Resolving complaints about compensation and resettlement of Vinh Bypass Project in Hung Tay commune

(Baonghean.vn) The Vinh Bypass Road project through Hung Tay commune (Hung Nguyen) started in 2003. The project ended and the road has been put into use for a long time, but complaints and denunciations related to compensation and resettlement land arrangement in Hung Tay commune have not ended...

In June 2010, 7 years after the project started, Mr. Tran Le Quoc Tuan and his wife Tran Thi Phuong in Dinh hamlet, Hung Tay commune (Hung Nguyen) filed a complaint against hamlet officials and the People's Committee of Hung Tay commune for some violations in the process of compensation and site clearance for the Vinh Bypass Project, such as: lack of thoroughness, confirmation of land use origin not in accordance with regulations to receive compensation, and allocation of resettlement land to the wrong subjects.

After the citizen's complaint, the People's Committee of Hung Nguyen district established an inspection team to verify the content of the complaint. On April 27, 2011, the People's Committee of Hung Nguyen district issued Conclusion Report No. 164/KL.CT concluding: There were violations in the process of preparing documents for compensation payment for the Vinh Bypass Project in Hung Tay. However, in the inspection results report, the team also affirmed that among the contents of the citizen's complaint and denunciation, there were correct and incorrect denunciations.

Compensation and resettlement support for the Vinh Bypass Project through Hung Tay commune would not be a problem if it was done in accordance with regulations and procedures. According to the inspection

of the interdisciplinary team, because in the stage of preparing the compensation dossier, the hamlet cadres made mistakes from the beginning, leading to mistakes in the other stages. The hamlet cadres were close to the base, but for personal gain, they declared the land recovered from the 5% contracted land as land allocated according to Decree 64/CP; the commune cadastral cadres, although having expertise and giving direct advice, did not check or compare the field but "initialized" the dossier to submit to the commune People's Committee.

On the side of the leaders of Hung Tay Commune People's Committee, because they trusted the advice of the land officer, they signed the certificate of origin for the households to make the records. Based on the records that had the signatures of the hamlet and the land officer, the Chairman of the Commune People's Committee, the consultant of the District Compensation and Site Clearance Council based on the drawings and site records made a list and compensation plan to advise the District Compensation and Site Clearance Council to approve the list of compensation payments to the households.

Then, during the payment process, the commune discovered that some households had their records and compensation money wrongly prepared and reported (verbally, in some cases in writing), but the District Land Acquisition Council did not receive it, so they continued to pay. Several years later, only when people reported it did the District People's Committee investigate and discovered that the amount of money wrongly paid in this case was not small. Through the inspection, the team pointed out the responsibilities of each individual. However, instead of handling the case resolutely and thoroughly, the district focused on directing the recovery of the wrongly paid money. The handling of related people as well as cases where the money could not be recovered was not resolute, causing many people to be skeptical and continue to complain and denounce.

A typical case is that of Mr. Hoang Quang Hien, the head of Khoa Da 1 hamlet. According to the verification results of the inspection team, Mr. Hoang Quang Hien was the one who clearly knew when preparing the documents for many cases that the land was 5% contracted, but still recorded it as land allocated according to Decree 64/CP for many cases, so that the households would receive higher compensation. After receiving the money, the households only received very little, the remaining tens of millions were given to the hamlet head, but the inspection team did not conclude and recommend a strict form of handling for this case (?).

On the other hand, the complaint of Ms. Phan Thi Hoa, Lam Dong hamlet, Hung Tay, raised the issue of resettlement land arrangement when reclaiming land, the commune was still confused and collected money not in accordance with regulations, leading to misunderstandings among people whose land was reclaimed and giving rise to prolonged complaints. In fact, in 2003-2004, when clearing the Vinh bypass, the district and commune initially had a policy that all households subject to resettlement would only be given a 400m2 plot of land, but in reality, resettlement was arranged according to the actual reclaimed area, so some problems arose.

In the case of Ms. Phan Thi Hoa, according to the People's Committee of Hung Nguyen district, Ms. Hoa's family had 1,136 m2 recovered (including the recovered area of ​​287 m2 of Ms. Hoa's son) to implement the BOT project of Vinh bypass. During the settlement process, Ms. Hoa was assigned 3 resettlement plots with a total area of ​​1,348 m2 (in which her son, Nguyen Van Nam, was resolved to separate into a separate household, and was assigned a plot of land with an area of ​​404 m2); the total resettlement area arranged for Ms. Hoa's family was 212 m2 more than the recovered area. After her son separated the household, the area recovered from Ms. Hoa's family was only 858 m2, she was arranged to resettle 944 m2, 86 m2 surplus, of which the resettlement land at lot number 9, Dam Chua area has an area of ​​400 m2, lot number 28 in Ao Cuong area has an area of ​​544 m2 (initially this land lot only had an area of ​​287 m2, but was adjusted to 544 m2 to resettle Ms. Hoa).

In fact, at first, Mrs. Hoa was skeptical, but after being explained, she agreed. Mr. Nam, her son, signed the documents to issue land use right certificates for lots 9 in Dap Chua area, lots 27 and 28 in Ao Cuong area. Right after the policy of allocating enough resettlement land according to the actual area recovered, the People's Committee of Hung Tay commune only needed to propose allocating resettlement land to Mrs. Hoa's family at lot 28, area 458 m2 (plus area 400 m2 at Dap Chua is 958 m2); at the same time, explaining and returning the amount of money collected from Mrs. Hoa at that time (collected to allocate 1 lot of land in the form of valuation) is to ensure rights and in accordance with regulations, but the People's Committee of Hung Tay commune did not do so.

On the other hand, during the complaint process, Ms. Hoa continued to discover that the payment slips by the Commune People's Committee recorded different reasons for payment, in which 1 payment slip of 5.94 million VND stated "payment for resettlement of Vinh Bypass Project" and 1 receipt of 6 million VND stated "payment for resettlement land of Vinh Bypass Project", so Ms. Hoa thought that the Commune People's Committee had some irregularities when on the one hand, the Commune said that it had handed over plot 28 to her with payment but the land use right certificate file stated that it was resettlement land. From then on, Ms. Hoa thought that the Commune still lacked 201 square meters of resettlement land, so she filed a complaint from then until now. In the subsequent settlement process, although the Commune and the People's Committee of Hung Nguyen district analyzed and explained, Ms. Hoa did not accept and complained.

Most recently, based on a review of the entire case once again, the Chairman of the People's Committee of Hung Nguyen district issued Decision No. 737/QD.UB dated September 27, 2011 to resolve Ms. Hoa's complaint, in which it affirmed that Ms. Phan Thi Hoa complained that the People's Committee of Hung Tay commune collected 12 million VND from her family to sell her land lot No. 28 in Ao Cuong area with an area of ​​287 m2; the land officer had allocated land to her family but had established in the resettlement land use right certificate file for her family lot No. 28 in Ao Cuong area with an area of ​​544 m2, therefore, her family still lacked 201 m2 of resettlement land, which is a false complaint, because:

Firstly, the People's Committee of Hung Tay commune did not sell land lot number 28 in Ao Cuong area with an area of ​​287 m2 to Ms. Hoa's family; 2 receipts for the amount of 12 million VND did not contain the content of collecting money from selling land lot number 28 in Ao Cuong area with an area of ​​287 m2.

Second, plot number 28 has an area of ​​544 m2, according to the subdivision planning drawing, the resettlement land has been allocated to Ms. Hoa's family; the resettlement area for Ms. Hoa's family is 944 m2, which is 86 m2 more than the recovered area.

Based on the above conclusion, the Chairman of the People's Committee of Hung Nguyen district assigned the People's Committee of Hung Tay commune to return the amount of 5,561 million VND plus the bank interest that was wrongly collected to Ms. Hoa according to regulations; at the same time, review and clarify the responsibilities of the collective and individuals who committed violations, draw lessons in land and budget management; preside over and coordinate with the District Land Acquisition and Clearance Council to re-examine the routes of households in the resettlement planning area of ​​Ao Cuong area, if not implemented according to the planning, propose and advise on additional plans.

Phuong Ha