A recent legal dispute over agricultural subsidy payments has been resolved by the People's Court of Shulan City, reinforcing the principle that those who cultivate the land are entitled to its benefits. The court exercised its judicial function to fairly adjudicate this rural land contract dispute, providing essential legal protection for the rural economic order and supporting the broader rural revitalization strategy.

The case arose when a plaintiff, who had obtained land management rights by subleasing from a third party through a formal Land Subcontract Agreement, discovered that corn planting subsidies had been withheld by the original contracting party for five consecutive years. Despite multiple demands for payment, the subsidies were not released, prompting the plaintiff to file a lawsuit with the court.

After accepting the case, the presiding judge meticulously reviewed the subcontract agreement and related subsidy documentation. The central question was whether the corn planting subsidy, after land transfer, should belong to the original land contractor or to the party actually cultivating the crops. The court conducted a thorough and careful examination of the facts from three key perspectives.

First, regarding the validity of the subcontract, the agreement between the plaintiff and the third party represented their genuine mutual intent and did not violate any mandatory legal provisions, making it lawful and effective. Second, concerning the ownership of the subsidy funds, the corn planting subsidy is a policy designed to reward actual cultivation, aiming to boost grain production enthusiasm and safeguard farmers' income. According to national and Jilin Province regulations, when land is transferred through subcontracting, leasing, or other means, subsidy funds should be disbursed to the actual producer, unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties. In this instance, the fifth clause of the contract explicitly stipulated that national subsidies for the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff, an arrangement that was legally valid and binding on all parties.

Third, the court determined that the defendant had committed unjust enrichment. As the actual cultivator of the land, the plaintiff held a legitimate right to the subsidy funds. The defendant's retention of these funds, which rightfully belonged to the plaintiff, lacked any legal or contractual basis, constituting unjust enrichment that must be returned. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to return the corn planting subsidies. This verdict reinforces the principle that those who farm the land benefit from it, and those who breach agreements bear responsibility. While land may change hands, the spirit of contract cannot be transferred away; subsidies may be distributed, but policy benefits must be precisely delivered to the fields and into the hands of the grain growers. Moving forward, the Court of Shulan City will continue its grassroots work, administering justice impartially and handling each agriculture-related case with dedication, ensuring that fairness is tangible and the warmth of the rule of law reaches everyone.