Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Task force raids Petchabun resorts

By The Nation

 

b21862cf4753afc4adef501e70ab795c-sld.jpeg

 

An integrated task force under the leadership of the Royal Forestry Department to suppress encroachment upon forest reserves and land authorised for special settlements in Petchabun’s popular resort town of Khao Kho has raided 15 more resorts as part of a two-week operation.

 

One resort was found to be hosting a renowned actor.

 

The force, including the Intenal Security Operations Command Region 4 officers, has continued its operations to suppress at least 135 resorts encroaching on forest reserves and those designated for special uses. 

 

The land, believed to be thousands of rai, was previously allocated to those once fighting the state decades ago before returning to join the government with special terms to help fight fellow communists. They were given land in Khao Kho to make a living, but years later some plots were found changing hands or being turned into resorts.

The force last week raided 15 resorts and this week 15 more. The land seized ranged from one to 13 rai. 

 

As the cases are complicated by various claims to the allocated land, the force would step up measures to ensure that the arrests would lead to court cases and that wrongdoers cannot make excuses to elude punishment, according to Cheewapap Cheewatham, chief of the Phayak Prai task force and the Forest Protection Operation Centre. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30345766

 

 
thenation_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-19
Posted
16 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

An integrated task force under the leadership of the Royal Forestry Department to suppress encroachment upon forest reserves and land authorised for special settlements

these encroachers are like cockroaches

  • Like 1
Posted

One more example of why the Thai laws against foreigners owning land are actually pretty humane.  If the locals don't know they bought illegal land, what chance does a foreigner stand.

 

Better to have 100 of us griping about not being able to own land than 95 of us griping about losing our savings because, like even the locals, we didn't know the land wasn't legal.  Because all the documents looked legit.  But that apparently doesn't mean much.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

This is interesting to hear. We have been looking at buying land here and just two weeks ago the Lands Office warned against buying a parcel even though it had a Chanote title. They said there would be problems for the owners soon. (Although previously they did not warn us about another parcel, but the local municipal office did.)

Where we are looking there is a diagonal line on their charting maps. One side of the line the title is good, land on the other side has obtained illegal title documents. A huge amount of land is involved.

Posted
5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

They were given land in Khao Kho to make a living, but years later some plots were found changing hands or being turned into resorts.

Apparently there were unwritten limits as to how the land could be used to "make a living." Selling land and building resorts are ways to generate income to make a living.

But no, that's not legal.

Sorry, but the so-called enforcement to suppress encroachment upon forest reserves looks more like a military government land grab.

Posted (edited)

Maybe it is just the military government overturning past corruption. The land was given by the King for rural purposes, not resorts, but this is not just resorts. There is much more land involved.

Edited by GreasyFingers
Posted
On 2018-05-19 at 6:39 AM, rooster59 said:

The land, believed to be thousands of rai, was previously allocated to those once fighting the state decades ago before returning to join the government with special terms to help fight fellow communists. They were given land in Khao Kho to make a living, but years later some plots were found changing hands or being turned into resorts.

The question then is, What were the conditions of the allocations?  Is this simply a case of breaking the terms of the agreement, or, are they adding conditions to what was an open "Make a living?"  Is there a document that they can point to that says farming only?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...