From Wasteland to Arable Land, Then Occupied: A Saltwater Agricultural Company's 20-Year Fight for Rights

Saltwater Agricultural Company's 20-Year Fight for Rights: From Investing Tens of Millions to Building an Academician Workstation

In 2006, Jiangsu Yancheng Green Yard Saltwater Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Green Yard Company") leased over 3,000 acres of saline-alkali wasteland in Binhai County to conduct saltwater agricultural research and development, and established the country's first coastal saltwater agricultural enterprise academician workstation. However, after transforming the wasteland into arable land, the company was repeatedly subjected to illegal occupation and profiteering by others.

From investing tens of millions to build a company to establishing an academician workstation, from a United Nations-recognized saltwater agricultural model to a rights protection dilemma, the life trajectory of "China's Good Person" Zhang Chunyin is full of contrasts.

In 2006, Green Yard Company leased over 3,000 acres of saline-alkali wasteland in Binhai County to conduct saltwater agricultural research and development, and established the country's first coastal saltwater agricultural enterprise academician workstation. However, after transforming the wasteland into arable land, the company was repeatedly subjected to illegal occupation and profiteering by others. The company reported the incidents to the police multiple times, but no criminal case was ever filed; through civil litigation, the company was entangled in a prolonged and difficult rights protection process.

"China's Good Person" Zhang Chunyin. Photo by Liu Hu

Until April 2025 and May 2026, Binhai Court ruled that two individuals, Hu Changjun and Fan Longyan, who were actually in control of the disputed land, should return the land and compensate the company. However, the amount of compensation supported by the court was far from the actual loss claimed by the company, and the research project had already been suspended, making it difficult to recover the lost investment opportunities and development opportunities.

When the company responded to the investment invitation and invested heavily in transforming the wasteland and developing technological agriculture, but was unable to effectively protect its legitimate rights for a long time, Zhang Chunyin lamented, "It's better to seize land than to farm it."

01

The 1,700-Acre Land Dispute

In 2006, under the investment invitation of the Binhai County Water Conservancy Department, Green Yard Company leased over 3,000 acres of saline-alkali wasteland on both sides of the Huaihe River estuary to build a base for the cultivation and research of salt-tolerant plants. After continuous investment and improvement, the originally barren saline-alkali land gradually became arable land. Green Yard Company successively cultivated multiple new varieties of salt-tolerant plants with independent intellectual property rights, established an academician workstation, and was named "Salt-Tolerant Vegetable Technology Demonstration Garden" by the Jiangsu Provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry. The company's founder, Zhang Chunyin, also received honors such as "China's Good Person," and the saltwater agricultural project was recognized by a United Nations agency.

However, individuals with ulterior motives began to emerge. Starting from 2008, Hu Changjun, Fan Longyan, and some local villagers successively occupied Green Yard Company's leased land.

"These people occupied the land under various pretexts, destroyed production facilities, and drove away employees, and then rented out the occupied land for profit. By 2014, Green Yard Company's leased and developed land had been almost completely occupied, and the company's years of accumulated research results and operational foundation were severely damaged!"

Zhang Chunyin said that in the face of continuous illegal occupation, Green Yard Company reported to the public security organs every year, but never received a criminal case filing. The company had no choice but to resort to civil litigation to protect its rights.

In a previous case involving over 100 villagers occupying the land, the Jiangsu High Court had already clearly confirmed that the "Land Lease Agreement" signed between Green Yard Company and the Binhai Coastal Management Office was legal and effective, and confirmed that Green Yard Company legally enjoyed the right to use the disputed land. As the lessor, the Binhai Management Office also provided written explanations to the court and law enforcement agencies multiple times, clearly stating that the disputed land was barren wasteland before leasing, and there were no disputes during the on-site measurement and handover process. Green Yard Company was the only legitimate user.

Despite this, the civil rights protection process of Green Yard Company was prolonged and difficult. The dispute over the approximately 700 acres of land occupied by Hu Changjun and others led to multiple lawsuits, and the company's rights protection process was entangled in a prolonged and difficult situation.

Official "Situation Explanation" provided by the interviewee

Starting from 2015, Green Yard Company filed civil lawsuits against the individuals who occupied the land. Among them, the case of Hu Changjun's obstruction of the company's use of the land was rejected by the Binhai County Court in September 2016; after Green Yard Company applied for a retrial, the Yancheng Intermediate Court ruled in July 2022 to revoke the original judgment and remand the case for retrial. Subsequently, the Binhai County Court again rejected Green Yard Company's lawsuit; after the company appealed, the case was once again remanded for retrial.

"The facts are not complicated, and the legal relationship is clear. The high court has already made a relevant judgment, but the case has been delayed repeatedly," Zhang Chunyin said. He believes that the prolonged and repeated trials have made it difficult for the company's legitimate rights to be protected in a timely manner.

What's even more unacceptable to him is that the individuals who occupied the land have been profiting from it during this period. According to his calculations, Hu Changjun alone has gained over 1 million yuan in profits from renting out the occupied land, while the relevant occupation behavior has not been effectively pursued.

"If legitimate leasing, investment, and innovation are not protected, but those who occupy the land can continue to profit, then the signal ultimately conveyed is that 'it's better to seize land than to farm it, and it's better to break the law than to abide by it,'" Zhang Chunyin said.

A case involving the obstruction of 100 acres of land has been delayed for nearly 10 years.

On April 16, 2025, the author publicly exposed Zhang Chunyin's experience in an article titled "'China's Good Person' Has 1,700 Acres of Land Occupied, No Case Filed After 17 Years of Reporting to the Police." On April 30, 2025, the Binhai County Court finally made a retrial judgment, and Green Yard Company won the lawsuit.

However, in Zhang Chunyin's view, this belated victory, which came nearly 10 years late, is far from enough to compensate for the company's lost time, opportunities, and development space. "The lawsuit was won, but it was a very frustrating victory!"

02

The Land Has Been Returned, But Who Will Bear the Losses?

The Binhai County Court ruled that Hu Changjun's defense that he had obtained the right to use the land through contracting with the original Zhendong Township government in 2001 was unfounded. The court believed that Hu Changjun had no legal basis for occupying the land, and should return the land to Green Yard Company.

However, on the issue of compensation, the court did not fully support Green Yard Company's claims. Green Yard Company claimed that Hu Changjun should compensate for the losses caused by occupying the land from 2011 to 2023, totaling 566,000 yuan, and should continue to pay land occupation fees according to the standard of 600 yuan per acre per year. However, the Binhai County Court believed that Green Yard Company had changed the purpose of the land use and had profited from it, so the compensation should be calculated based on the actual rent paid to the Binhai Management Office and the reasonable operating income.

A witness's statement about Hu Changjun's actions. Provided by the interviewee

On June 2, 2026, the Yancheng Intermediate Court made a final judgment, rejecting Green Yard Company's appeal and upholding the original judgment.

What's even more frustrating for Zhang Chunyin is that, out of the 16 similar cases, only the case of Hu Changjun was supported by the Binhai County Court after multiple appeals and retrials, while the other cases are still in a situation where the court supports the illegal behavior of the occupiers.

"Why is the rights protection process so difficult for such a clear-cut case of illegal occupation?"

03

The Dispute Over the 210-Acre Fish Pond

Just as the Hu Changjun case was settled, the dispute between Green Yard Company and Fan Longyan over the 210-acre tidal flat land also made new progress.

Green Yard Company claimed that it had legally obtained the right to use the land until 2036 and 2039 according to the "Land Lease Agreement" and the "Supplementary Agreement." However, Fan Longyan occupied the land and rented it out to others for aquaculture, leading to a lawsuit.

During the trial, Fan Longyan presented a different account, claiming that he had obtained the right to use the land through a contract with the original Zhendong Township government in 2001, and had been confirmed by the agricultural department. He denied that he had occupied the land and claimed that he had allowed the two contractors, Jiang Hua and Cao Debiao, to enter the land for aquaculture.

The Binhai County Court believed that Fan Longyan's evidence was insufficient to prove his legal right to use the land, and ruled that he should return the land to Green Yard Company.

However, the court also ruled that the compensation should be calculated based on the actual rent paid by the contractors, rather than the market price. Green Yard Company appealed, arguing that the court's calculation method was unfair and did not reflect the actual value of the land.

Green Yard Company is the country's first coastal saltwater agricultural enterprise academician workstation. Photo by Liu Hu

The case is still under appeal.

In another case, Green Yard Company had leased the fish pond to several contractors, but they refused to return the land and facilities after the contract expired. The company applied for arbitration and won, but the contractors still refused to return the land and facilities.

"In December 2024, the demolition and relocation office of the Huaihe River estuary project paid the compensation for the facilities to the three contractors who occupied the land and facilities, rather than to the legitimate owner, Green Yard Company. This is another case of 'zero cost for illegal occupation and profit for infringement.'"

Green Yard Company has applied for administrative reconsideration, and the case is still pending.

Appendix: The Author's Notes

Zhang Chunyin, as a "China's Good Person" and a pioneer in saltwater agriculture, has been entangled in a rights protection dilemma for nearly 20 years. This touches on the core issue of building a business environment: can the government's promises be fulfilled, and can enterprises' legitimate rights be protected?

In recent years, governments at all levels have been promoting the optimization of the business environment. Whether it is Jiangsu Province's "Optimization of Business Environment Action Plan" or Yancheng City's efforts to create a market-oriented, rule-of-law-based, and internationalized business environment, the key word is "rule of law."

The business environment ultimately depends on whether investors can believe that as long as they operate legally, their legitimate rights will not be infringed upon, and if their rights are infringed upon, they can receive timely relief.

Examining Zhang Chunyin's experience, what is most disturbing is the loss of this expectation.

If a company invests tens of millions of yuan to transform wasteland into arable land, but ultimately cannot effectively prevent others from occupying it; if the high court has already confirmed that the contract is legal and effective, and the lessor has proven that the company has the legitimate right to use the land, but the dispute can still be prolonged and repeated; if the occupiers can profit for a long time, while the rights holders are entangled in a prolonged and difficult rights protection process, then the damage is not just to one company, but to the confidence of all potential investors in the local rule of law.

For enterprises, market losses can be accepted, and technological failures can be retried, but if the realization of legitimate rights depends on a prolonged and unpredictable rights protection process, then any investment invitation will lose its persuasive power.

A private enterprise that became a street name on the China-Russia border, with its assets being eroded by state-owned enterprises and the government

The 'Internal Contracting Profit Embezzlement' Case of the Surveying and Mapping Institute, Questioning the 20-Year-Old State-Owned Enterprise Contracting System

A Company Sues for Tens of Millions of Yuan, and the Tongshan County Government and Court of Hubei Province Hold a Coordination Meeting, Accused of Interfering with the Trial

The 'Rotting' Community in Qingdao, with 300 Million Yuan in Bribes Behind It, and the Authorities' Failure to Pursue Recovery for 10 Years

The Xianning State-Owned Assets Sold Land in Violation of the Law for 18 Years, and the Developer Paid Compensation and Still Refused to Deliver the Land