东莞土地案争议：17亿元全额付款土地被无偿收回，再罚款3亿

Core Viewpoint - The case involves a significant dispute over land rights in Dongguan, where two companies, Hechuang and Herong, paid a total of 17.21 billion yuan for land but faced the government's decision to reclaim the land without compensation and impose a fine of 3.44 billion yuan due to alleged idleness [1][16]. Group 1: Background of the Case - Hechuang and Herong companies acquired 258 acres of land in Dongguan for the "Ziguang Chip Cloud Industrial City Project," with Hechuang paying 1.67 billion yuan for 108 acres and Herong paying 15.54 billion yuan for 150 acres [1][7]. - The land was intended for a digital and intelligent industrial city, including a 5G technology research center and a commercial complex [7][8]. - The companies signed contracts with the Dongguan government in 2019 and paid the full amount for the land [6][7]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - In 2021, Dongguan's Natural Resources Bureau initiated an investigation into the alleged idleness of the land, leading to a fine and the decision to reclaim the land in 2023 [2][16]. - The companies filed for administrative review, which was rejected, and subsequently sued the Dongguan government and the Natural Resources Bureau [3][18]. - The first-instance court ruled against the companies in January 2025, leading them to appeal the decision [4][22]. Group 3: Impact of External Factors - The COVID-19 pandemic significantly delayed the project, affecting the ability to commence construction as per the original timeline [8][20]. - The companies argued that the pandemic constituted force majeure, impacting their ability to meet deadlines [20][21]. - The financial troubles of Ziguang Group, which was linked to the project, also influenced the government's stance on the project [11][20]. Group 4: Government's Justification - The Dongguan Natural Resources Bureau justified the reclamation of the land based on the "Idle Land Disposal Measures," stating that the companies failed to commence development within the stipulated time [12][16]. - The bureau's actions were described as lawful and not isolated incidents, indicating a broader policy on idle land [6][23]. - The bureau's director did not provide specific examples of similar cases involving such large sums of money being reclaimed after full payment [23].