Land resumption on the way

[4MyEgo]

Visiting a friend today, about 20 minutes out of Sawang Daen Din and government workers checking vacant land lots short of Chanote title, i.e. any vacant land without any structures on them looking to take back land.

 

Might want to let the wife's/gf's know if you have any vacant lots without any structures on them to get cracking, the area falls under Sakon Nakhon province I am told for what it's worth. 

[GreasyFingers]

We have a situation here where some friends purchased 3 rai of Nor Sor 3 Gor land about 5 years ago. They now want to sell but the Land Office has advised that they will not transfer title as the land is within an area that should not have been given title deeds. The original NS3G title was issued to a General in the police force or army. The Government can reclaim the land at any time.

They have not used the land since they bought it and the Land Office further advised that anyone could grow crops on it for one year and then claim the land. Someone has been growing cabbages on it without their permission so a very bad situation.

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, GreasyFingers said:

We have a situation here where some friends purchased 3 rai of Nor Sor 3 Gor land about 5 years ago.

Never buy land in Thailand, unless there's a 90% Bank mortgage on it.

Then if it all goes wrong, it's mainly the banks loss and not yours.

[ThomasThBKK]

15 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

We have a situation here where some friends purchased 3 rai of Nor Sor 3 Gor land about 5 years ago. They now want to sell but the Land Office has advised that they will not transfer title as the land is within an area that should not have been given title deeds. The original NS3G title was issued to a General in the police force or army. The Government can reclaim the land at any time.

They have not used the land since they bought it and the Land Office further advised that anyone could grow crops on it for one year and then claim the land. Someone has been growing cabbages on it without their permission so a very bad situation.

 

Imo this is 10 years not 1 year. Squatting land for 1 year is not enough for titled land.

Also Nor Sor 3 Gor is fully transferable, however birthdefects can ruin every title deed here....they can't confiscate it without a court ruling imo. 

 

Land offices often give rough information out, i wouldn't listen to them.

[GreasyFingers]

1 hour ago, ThomasThBKK said:

 

Imo this is 10 years not 1 year. Squatting land for 1 year is not enough for titled land.

Also Nor Sor 3 Gor is fully transferable, however birthdefects can ruin every title deed here....they can't confiscate it without a court ruling imo. 

 

Land offices often give rough information out, i wouldn't listen to them.

Good to know that you know more than the Land Office.

You do not understand that the NS3G was issued illegally on land that was not to be alienated. We even have illegal chanote title up here.

But if you would like to buy some I can arrange a good price for you.

[cmsally]

2 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

We have a situation here where some friends purchased 3 rai of Nor Sor 3 Gor land about 5 years ago. They now want to sell but the Land Office has advised that they will not transfer title as the land is within an area that should not have been given title deeds. The original NS3G title was issued to a General in the police force or army. The Government can reclaim the land at any time.

They have not used the land since they bought it and the Land Office further advised that anyone could grow crops on it for one year and then claim the land. Someone has been growing cabbages on it without their permission so a very bad situation.

In that situation your friends should post haste get that person growing cabbages to sign a rental contract for the land even if it is only a tiny rental sum mentioned. Should get signatures on backdated versions too. If they refuse should get them and cabbages removed immediately. If both look tricky get local headman involved and get some paperwork saying they are trespassing on your land.

[cmsally]

As above multiple years of occupation needed for squatters rights, but not beyond some people to get local signatures saying they have been there for decades growing cabbages!

[GreasyFingers]

14 minutes ago, cmsally said:

As above multiple years of occupation needed for squatters rights, but not beyond some people to get local signatures saying they have been there for decades growing cabbages!

I am only repeating what the Land Office. It appears that they are treating the land as not having a title so utilization rights apply. The LO did say if the friends fenced the land it could not be claimed but their title is still no good. They would only have utilization rights due to the fencing.

They could also still build on the land but there is no water or electricity and the road is suspect in the wet season. Even with a building they still only have utilization rights and no chance of a proper title.

[cmsally]

14 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

I am only repeating what the Land Office. It appears that they are treating the land as not having a title so utilization rights apply. The LO did say if the friends fenced the land it could not be claimed but their title is still no good. They would only have utilization rights due to the fencing.

They could also still build on the land but there is no water or electricity and the road is suspect in the wet season. Even with a building they still only have utilization rights and no chance of a proper title.

As far as I am aware a Nor Sor 3 Gor has almost the same rights as a Chanot. For the land dept to say its useless is somewhat bizarre as it would have been sold at the Land Office and with their full knowledge. If the previous owner had upgraded another type of title to this title then again has to be done with Land Office involvement. Is this only one piece of land or part of many titles on the boundary on National Park etc. ?? It all sounds very fishy.

If they say the title is useless, then check for whoever signed it at the land office at transfer because they must be complicit in the sale of illegal land!!

[ThomasThBKK]

45 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Good to know that you know more than the Land Office.

You do not understand that the NS3G was issued illegally on land that was not to be alienated. We even have illegal chanote title up here.

But if you would like to buy some I can arrange a good price for you.

 

Hence my comment about birthdefects, been there done that and that's why lawyers do due diligence reports before one buys land.

I totally understand the 'illegal' chanote, but it's not in the land offices power to rule that, a court has to. It has been issued by the LAND OFFICE that's why a lawyer would sue the land office and whoever worked there at that time, including the previous owner. And that magically often sorts this problems - they always try to steal land tho.

This is totally common on Samui, Pha Ngan and co...

 

But enjoy, pissing on everyone that tries to help is a sure way to get discuss here....And no i don't buy property without due diligence, so have fun with it.

[ThomasThBKK]

2 minutes ago, cmsally said:

As far as I am aware a Nor Sor 3 Gor has almost the same rights as a Chanot. For the land dept to say its useless is somewhat bizarre as it would have been sold at the Land Office and with their full knowledge. If the previous owner had upgraded another type of title to this title then again has to be done with Land Office involvement. Is this only one piece of land or part of many titles on the boundary on National Park etc. ?? It all sounds very fishy.

If they say the title is useless, then check for whoever signed it at the land office at transfer because they must be complicit in the sale of illegal land!!

yes in 99% of these cases the land office are the criminals and if you go after them that often solves the problem because they don't want to sit in a court, after all it was their dirty practice that did this.

[GreasyFingers]

3 hours ago, cmsally said:

As far as I am aware a Nor Sor 3 Gor has almost the same rights as a Chanot. For the land dept to say its useless is somewhat bizarre as it would have been sold at the Land Office and with their full knowledge. If the previous owner had upgraded another type of title to this title then again has to be done with Land Office involvement. Is this only one piece of land or part of many titles on the boundary on National Park etc. ?? It all sounds very fishy.

If they say the title is useless, then check for whoever signed it at the land office at transfer because they must be complicit in the sale of illegal land!!

As I mentioned before the original owner of the NS3G title was a General in either the police force or army (his title is on the deed). Up until now the Land Office has gone along with subsequent transfers (the one to the friends by someone connected to the <deleted>) but have been instructed to stop because the title is illegal, it is government property. There are thousands of properties up here that are similarly affected, including one for sale at 100M baht by a foreigner.

We were very close to being caught ourselves but because of my property background made enough inquiries.

Edited November 23, 2019 by blackcab
One word removed

[khunPer]

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Never buy land in Thailand, unless there's a 90% Bank mortgage on it.

Then if it all goes wrong, it's mainly the banks loss and not yours.

Bank mortgage might be difficult, especially 90 percent. Just do due diligence before you buy; have a bit of common sense; and protect your "investment", there are various ways for doing that...????

[farmerjo]

The Amphur staff have been out and about in the villages here.

As far as i know they are measuring up all the ma and pa shop sizes so they can be taxed appropriately.

No vacant lots at this stage.

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by farmerjo

[BritManToo]

17 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Bank mortgage might be difficult, especially 90 percent. Just do due diligence before you buy; have a bit of common sense; and protect your "investment", there are various ways for doing that...????

I prefer the bank protecting my 'investment', they have far more clout than me in Thailand.

Glad I did, cos if I'd paid cash up front I would have been out after the divorce.

As it is, as long as I make the repayments, I get to live in it.

She can kick me out in another 21 years.

Edited November 23, 2019 by BritManToo

[DaRoadrunner]

59 minutes ago, khunPer said:

protect your "investment", there are various ways for doing that...

Do tell....

[khunPer]

21 hours ago, DaRoadrunner said:

Do tell....

Contact an experienced law firm within property for foreigners – that's what I did – they will be able to give you solutions; and some, or one, might fit within your budget...????

 

An often used method however scared me away, after I saw a huge sign in a bar with this text:
 

Quote

Thai ladies has been voted as the best housekeepers – you buy, they keep

PS: The bar was paid up-front for by a foreign man for his wife to run the business; he is not there anymore, nor is the big sign...????

Edited November 24, 2019 by khunPer

[DaRoadrunner]

I have been in contact with a few lawyers here, each had his own ideas on how to protect ones investment.... all of which made my hair stand on end.

[Dumbastheycome]

Seems  a strange situation.  land  that has been  utilized for  cropping  even without  express consent  by the  ascribed holder that is in dispute indicates  that  possibly  the   cropper is  attempting  to  become   the newly ascribed. How else would the  Land Office  know  what the usage  situation was?

If it  came down to a  denial of a  verbal  consent/contract versus a  written contract it  can not  be denied the  land was left unused which is  the  base  criteria  for  re-acquisition  of such  land if continued  for  3  years. If it has been but  not  by the  ascribed recipient even in absence of  any permission  then someone  is screwing them. IMO

[DaRoadrunner]

3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Seems  a strange situation.  land  that has been  utilized for  cropping  even without  express consent  by the  ascribed holder that is in dispute indicates  that  possibly  the   cropper is  attempting  to  become   the newly ascribed. How else would the  Land Office  know  what the usage  situation was?

If it  came down to a  denial of a  verbal  consent/contract versus a  written contract it  can not  be denied the  land was left unused which is  the  base  criteria  for  re-acquisition  of such  land if continued  for  3  years. If it has been but  not  by the  ascribed recipient even in absence of  any permission  then someone  is screwing them. IMO

There are two kinds of people in this world, those who screw and those who get screwed.

[Dumbastheycome]

12 hours ago, DaRoadrunner said:

There are two kinds of people in this world, those who screw and those who get screwed.

Not a philosophy I  agree  with.

[GreasyFingers]

21 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Seems  a strange situation.  land  that has been  utilized for  cropping  even without  express consent  by the  ascribed holder that is in dispute indicates  that  possibly  the   cropper is  attempting  to  become   the newly ascribed. How else would the  Land Office  know  what the usage  situation was?

If it  came down to a  denial of a  verbal  consent/contract versus a  written contract it  can not  be denied the  land was left unused which is  the  base  criteria  for  re-acquisition  of such  land if continued  for  3  years. If it has been but  not  by the  ascribed recipient even in absence of  any permission  then someone  is screwing them. IMO

It has not come to that situation yet but it is easy to change the date on your camera if you want to use photos as evidence.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, GreasyFingers said:

It has not come to that situation yet but it is easy to change the date on your camera if you want to use photos as evidence.

Utilization versus non productivness regardless of  date is the primary  issue or  not?

[GreasyFingers]

14 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Utilization versus non productivness regardless of  date is the primary  issue or  not?

Do not know as the status of the land was not explained by the Land Office, if they know themselves.

[Dumbastheycome]

41 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Do not know as the status of the land was not explained by the Land Office, if they know themselves.

If it  is  considered  as  ( My apologies if  my  spelling  is not  strictly  correct) Sor Pra Khor land which   means it  was allocated  to a specific  family principle member then it is  that  family  who has  right of  utilization that  must be continuous for not less than 3 years . There  is  no  legal right  to  "sell" outside  of  direct  family  members. Leasing seems to escape  that. But   selling even to extended  family is  invalid despite  it happening. Which  many times  has  created  problems  over  legal status of  land  acquired  by  big  business.

Only  land that  is  classified as having a "Chanote" or  legal Title  applied  for and  obtained  through a very  lengthy process ( officially) can be  "sold" and  such  title  be  transferred.

That is  because  such  land on the original Sor Pra Khor allocation  was  to  provide a sustainable family unit existence situation rather than a personal  "asset" definition.

The  status  of  the  land is  clearly specified on  the  documentation related  to it.

Any  documentation  such as a "sale" agreement even if signed and witnessed  by any head   honcho of the  village is invalid unless  it  is  to a  son or  daughter. Cussins  do  not   count  any  more  than the  Pope !

The  Land  Office  will  know. But as historically  one of the  most  corrupt departments  in Thailand yet   know that current  claiment  to ownership  is  void and  may be  being  funded  by even the  current  squatter "croppers" to  have it  re allocated.

If the  name on  the  'OWNER" documents  is  not  one of  those who are a  direct family  member of the original principle to whom the  land  was allocated and it  remains in the status  of  Sor Pra  Khor then ....solly. (Unless someone wants  to  outfund  the other interested ...wink wink).

 

 

 

[swissie]

The 77 different Land-Titles is even confusing to Thai's. Even with the help of a "trusted Thai-wife" and her "expertise". Future Farang Real-Estate Tycoons may want to think twice.

[swissie]

On 11/23/2019 at 1:32 PM, BritManToo said:

I prefer the bank protecting my 'investment', they have far more clout than me in Thailand.

Glad I did, cos if I'd paid cash up front I would have been out after the divorce.

As it is, as long as I make the repayments, I get to live in it.

She can kick me out in another 21 years.

Now you got my attention: What Thai bank would loan 90% to a Farang in connection with any property in Thailand?

Name the Bank and I would jump at the opportunity.

(as would 400 thousand of other long term Farangs). Pls name details, procedures etc etc.

[Goinghomesoon]

We have Sor Por Kor land, the family block was originally 116 rai which is now split between the children. Some of us have built houses & use the land but some siblings in Bangkok do no actively use their land, though they always say they intend to retire back there on the land.  The Land Office came out 3 months ago and started checking blocks in our area for usage. Those not using the land were given a set period of time within which to show their future plans. They haven't made it to our road yet but we are hoping that the 'family' aspect of the original block and the fact that a significant proportion of the family are using the land as it was intended - to provide a livelihood - will get us over the line.