Chinese Highways Built Around Houses, Challenging Conventional Demolition Practices
In some parts of China, it may come as a surprise to see highways built around residential houses, with the houses situated right in the middle of the road or along the center of a double-lane highway. This peculiar approach to highway construction challenges conventional demolition practices and raises questions about property rights and government intervention.
Unlike in many other countries, where the government can forcefully take over someone’s land or property for public infrastructure projects, the situation in China is different. The Chinese government is not allowed to forcibly evict property owners or seize their land without their consent. If a highway is planned to pass through a property, the government offers various options to the house owner. They can choose to buy the house, compensate the owner financially, or offer alternative accommodation in a different location. However, if the owner refuses to leave the property, the government cannot forcefully remove them or take over the property against their will.
This unique approach stems from the Chinese legal framework, which protects individuals’ property rights. In China, the government must respect the rights of property owners and find alternative solutions when encountering obstacles during infrastructure development.
The result is that in China, it is not uncommon to see houses standing in the middle of a highway where the owners have chosen to remain in their homes despite the construction plans. The government then finds a way to build the road around these houses, ensuring that the properties are not disturbed.
This approach stands in stark contrast to countries like Nigeria, where the government has significant power over land and property. According to the Land Use Act in Nigeria, the government ultimately owns all the land in the country, leasing it to individuals for a limited time. This gives the government the authority to take over any property, demolish structures, or force owners to vacate if it serves a public purpose or use. Even if valuable natural resources are discovered on private land, the government can claim ownership and oust the property owner, offering only minimal compensation.
While Nigerian citizens have the constitutional right to own immovable property, this right is subject to the convenience of the government. The government has the power to demolish properties for the construction of public amenities such as markets or highways. Unlike in China, where private ownership supersedes public ownership, Nigeria follows a different approach.
This contrast between China and Nigeria prompts questions about property rights, government authority, and the balance between public and private interests. The Chinese model prioritizes individual property rights, ensuring that property owners have a say in infrastructure development while seeking alternative solutions. On the other hand, Nigeria’s system allows the government to exercise greater control over land allocation and property ownership.
As these experiences highlight the divergent approaches to land and property ownership, there may be lessons to be learned from China’s model of respecting private ownership and finding innovative ways to accommodate infrastructure development without forcibly displacing homeowners.
