Introduction: An administrative appeal is a book in which a party to an administrative lawsuit refuses to accept the administrative judgment or ruling of first instance of a local people's court at all levels, and appeals to the people's court at the next higher level within the statutory appeal period, requesting to cancel or change the original judgment. Next, I have compiled several classic model essays on administrative appeals for your reference.

?

Fan Wenyi:

Plaintiff (plaintiff of first instance): Li? , male, Years old? Ethnic group, city people, city? Retired factory workers, living in this city? Village? Street? Number.

appellee (defendant of first instance): city? District Urban Construction Environmental Protection Bureau.

legal representative: lai? , director.

entrusted agent: Wang? Deputy director.

cause of action: the appellant refused to accept it? District People's Court (? )? The administrative judgment No.4 of Fa Xing Zi is appealed. The appeal requests and reasons are as follows:

Request:

1. Withdrawal? District court (? )? Administrative Judgment (Fa Xing Zi No.4), revised according to law;

2. The appellee shall bear the administrative tort liability and compensate all economic losses due to the negligence of the appellee's staff and the building losses caused to the appellant during the performance of his duties.

reasons:

1. the appellant died in 19? Year? Month? Approved by the appellee on, in? Village? Street? A two-story east building was built in the courtyard of your home. The appellant is based on the approved drawings and (? )? Jian zi di? No. "Private Building Permit" as the basis, and the appellee sent staff to the site for inspection, line drawing and piling positioning before the appellant started the construction. In order not to conflict with neighbors during the construction, the appellant's son Li? To the appellee's office, he stamped his own hand stamp on the approved building drawing face to face, and indicated on the spot that this 1.15m (see the drawing) is the west eaves. After hearing this, the appellee did not make any statement, nor did he make a note on the drawing. At 19? Year? Month? The appellee asked the appellant to remove the west eaves by 1cm, and then build a high ridge on the roof to prevent rainwater from flowing out from the west. Judging from the appellee's request, it is enough to prove the investigation in the judgment of the court of first instance: it is stated that there should be no buildings (referring to eaves)? The theory of "the truth" cannot be established. Is it against Article 4 of the Administrative Procedure Law that the court of first instance unilaterally listened to the appellee's statement without any basis and proof as the basis for its judgment? When trying administrative cases, the people's courts shall take facts as the basis and the law as the standard? The provisions of the. If the facts and evidence of the case are unclear, it should be investigated and verified, and one party should not be credulous.

2. Most of the Records of On-the-spot Investigation of the Court of First Instance are inaccurate, but what are the reasons for this inaccuracy? It is an irresponsible dereliction of duty for the court of first instance to make a judgment on the basis of the Record of On-the-spot Investigation without making in-depth investigation and research, even without detailed investigation and verification of the relevant certificates (documentary evidence and investigation record) provided by the appellant. As far as the Appellant knows, when the building was under construction, the Appellee went to the site for inspection and piling. When the building was built one meter high, its staff visited the site, and there was no objection at that time and later. Why didn't the court of first instance consider this situation? The appellant left a window on the west side of the building, which was on the original drawing, but the door was located in the south, unlike the judgment of the court of first instance. The west facade of the plaintiff's application drawing is open to the west, but the building is open to the south. So the west window appears? That way. The plaintiff's building door was left in the south, and the defendant and the staff knew it and saw the scene. The relevant evidence proved this. From the judgment? West window? The problem is enough to explain? Don't have any buildings 1.15 meters west? The statement is absurd. If the door is installed on the west side and there is no corridor or eaves on the second floor, how can we enter the house? Besides, when there is a dispute over the eaves, the appellee only said that the west eaves can be removed by 1 cm, and other issues will not be investigated. This can only show that the appellee allowed or tacitly recognized the current situation of building, without any treatment. Now that the appellee has gone back on his word, the court of first instance should not give protection to this kind of behavior, let alone serve as the basis for a final judgment.

?

fan wener:

appellant: XX, female, born on xx, xxxx, Han nationality, employee of real estate administration bureau of Xunyang county, living at xx street, Xunyang county.

Appellee: xx, male, born on xx, xxxx, Han nationality, retired employee of Xunyang County Communications Bureau, living in Building X, Unit xx, family member of Xunyang County xx Limited Liability Company.

Appellee: xx, female, Han nationality, born on xx, xxxx, retired employee of Xunyang Automobile Transportation Co., Ltd., with the same address as above.

Defendant in the original trial: legal representative of Xunyang County People's Government: Zhang xx, acting as county magistrate

Appeal request:

1. The administrative judgment No.14 (21) of Xunyang County People's Court was ordered to be revoked.

2. The judgment rejected the appellee's original claim.

reasons for appeal:

1. The nature of the legal relationship involved in this case was wrongly determined in the judgment of the original trial. The "Reply on the Transfer of State-owned Land Use Rights by Zou Yue, a resident of Chengguan Town" issued by the defendant of the original trial to the appellant was not a reply on construction land, but a reply on the transfer of state-owned land use rights, that is, it agreed that the land use rights were transferred from the original commercial housing development company in Xunyang County to the appellant of this case. The State-owned Land Use Certificate No.47 (21) issued by the defendant in the original trial is an act of property right registration in nature, and property right registration is a publicity method of real estate property rights, not an administrative act.

second, the original judgment was wrongly applied. Did the original judgment refer to Article 38 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law? Where the right to the use of state-owned land is provided by means of transfer within the planning area of a city or town, before the transfer of the right to the use of state-owned land, the competent department of urban and rural planning of the people's government of a city or county shall, according to the regulatory detailed planning, put forward the planning conditions such as the location, use nature and development intensity of the land to be transferred as an integral part of the contract for the transfer of the right to the use of state-owned land. Land plots with uncertain planning conditions shall not be allowed to transfer the right to use state-owned land? .

what is the applicable condition of this clause? Provide the right to use state-owned land by means of transfer? . The land involved in this case is the transfer of state-owned land use rights, that is, from the original commercial housing development company in Xunyang County to the appellant in this case, and it is not the state that provides state-owned land use rights by way of transfer.

the state-owned land use right of the plot involved in this case was formed as early as June 8, 1988, when the Reply on Land Requisition of Commercial Housing Development Company in County District was approved. This case is of the nature of transfer, transfer and registration of property rights of state-owned land, and the appellee refuses to accept it, so he can only seek relief according to the objection registration system stipulated in Article 19 of the Property Law. Therefore, it is obviously wrong for the original judgment to apply Article 38 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law to revoke the approval of the transfer of state-owned land use rights and the Certificate of State-owned Land Use Rights.