Land Titles

[deanoEFC]

hello everyone has anybody heard of papers for land "reform land for agriculture office (4-01)" what exactly does that mean,

thanx in advance for any help.....

[Khonwan]

I suspect it is Sor Por Kor.

Rgds

Khonwan

[Maizefarmer]

Correct - 4-01 is indeed SOR POR KOR: given to folk of limited financial means. The 2 primary conditions (amongst a few others) are:

1) can only be passed on to immediate family/heirs - meaning: wife/husband to husband or wife in the case of death of one or the other, or parent(s) to children, or brother/sister to another brother sister. Second and third cousins once removed ect ect .... are excluded.

2) cannot be bought or sold.

That said, there is actually a lot of buying & selling of SPK titled land, and some very creative ways have been developed to "get round" the restrictions on buying/selling this land e.g. long lease, in which the legal owner keeps the land in their name but enters into a private arrangement with a prospective tenent. What has enabled this to happen is because SPK land is administered at a local level at village headman level - not at provincial or central government level i.e. giving decision taking to local and Amphur level officials opens the door to rule bending on the basis of local relationships, rather than the rule book.

In the strict sense of Land Office rules pertaining to SPK land these transactions are not allowed, but they do happen (with local official blessing) and by and large so long as the local "bigwig" is involved, approves (and gets his slice of the cake), these priavte arrangements tend to be problem free - so long as the renter doesn't fall out with the title holder some years down the road - at which point, if the plug is pulled on you, you may well have little recourse to whatever "investment" you may have made on the land e.g. a building you mayhave constructed, or irrigation system you may have installed.

..... which leads to the main point a renter needs to keep in: the SPK rules & regs pertaining to the construction of buildings on SPK land. Their are restrictions - it is primarily agricultural land. One can't put up an apratment block, or build a bunch of houses for rent. Strictly speaking no permanent building may be constructed on SPK land, but the rules do permitt "tempory shelter". This is one of the so-called "grandfather/legacy" regs as most SPK land was (in the old days) rice land (but it is not restricted to just rice land) which was used seasonally by out of town folk - folk from other provinces, and of course they needed a roof over their heads for the rice growing season. So "temp structures" are permitted under this rule. But, like most rules & regs in Thailand, this one too is bent a lot - and generally speaking, so long as as the local officials give their blessing, you are not going to run into problems. But keep mind - if you fall out with folk down the road, your recourse to recouperating any investment may/may not present some problems.

My opinion about SPK land: don't even consider it unless you have a well established relationship with all parties (officials and SPK title holder) - that has to be the starting point.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Maizefarmer

[bruceboy]

This confirms what I have been told. Heard of to many people eventually being evicted.

[Khonwan]

Death is not a necessary condition for SorPorKor land to be transferred to a close member of the family.

Rental contracts are completely forbidden – the village headman and/or amphur officials have absolutely nothing to do with SorPorKor land (they do with squatter-rights land). Officials from the local SorPorKor office do sometimes visit areas to enquire if SorPorKor is being rented out (happened in my village).

I would say, do not consider buying SorPorKor land unless you are close family of the owner, irrespective of your relationship with the SorPorKor officials: these officials do change and a new manager can make a name for himself by investigating old cases…in which case the land would be confiscated.

I do not believe it to be the case that permanent buildings are not allowed on SorPorKor land.

Rgds

Khonwan (‘owner’ – via wife – of SorPorKor land)

[deanoEFC]

Death is not a necessary condition for SorPorKor land to be transferred to a close member of the family.

Rental contracts are completely forbidden – the village headman and/or amphur officials have absolutely nothing to do with SorPorKor land (they do with squatter-rights land). Officials from the local SorPorKor office do sometimes visit areas to enquire if SorPorKor is being rented out (happened in my village).

I would say, do not consider buying SorPorKor land unless you are close family of the owner, irrespective of your relationship with the SorPorKor officials: these officials do change and a new manager can make a name for himself by investigating old cases…in which case the land would be confiscated.

I do not believe it to be the case that permanent buildings are not allowed on SorPorKor land.

Rgds

Khonwan ('owner' – via wife – of SorPorKor land)

thanx khonwan looks like its a big no no!

[Maizefarmer]

Death is not a necessary condition for SorPorKor land to be transferred to a close member of the family.

Rental contracts are completely forbidden – the village headman and/or amphur officials have absolutely nothing to do with SorPorKor land (they do with squatter-rights land). Officials from the local SorPorKor office do sometimes visit areas to enquire if SorPorKor is being rented out (happened in my village).

I would say, do not consider buying SorPorKor land unless you are close family of the owner, irrespective of your relationship with the SorPorKor officials: these officials do change and a new manager can make a name for himself by investigating old cases…in which case the land would be confiscated.

I do not believe it to be the case that permanent buildings are not allowed on SorPorKor land.

Rgds

Khonwan (‘owner’ – via wife – of SorPorKor land)

"Death is not a necessary condition for SorPorKor land to be transferred to a close member of the family"

"village headman and/or amphur officials have absolutely nothing to do with SorPorKor land"

Khonwan – I have a copy of the Land Reform Act in front of me. With respect to Sor Por Kor land as revised under Chuan Leekpai’s government, it makes crystal clear (amongst other things):

ALRO (Agricultural land Reform Office) will be responsible for the aollocation of SPK 4-01 land titles – which are to be administrated at the “หมู่บ้าน” level through the the “ ผู้ใหญ่บ้าน”

Now this is not a blanket rule, and where you may be correct in your correction of what I said, was with respect to SPK 4-01 land that is held within the boundries of a เทศบาลนคร or เทศบาลเมือง, and therefore there is no ผู้ใหญ่บ้าน. In these cases, the land administered by a committee or council.

Further on, with respect to transfer, it is stated ……..

….. title ship may only be transferred through last will and testament …. and on it goes to define immediate family members.... blah blah, blah blah ...

Last will & testament is usualy upon death is it not?

I see nothing else in the rules that permitts the transfer of titleship to another family member - inheritance through last will & testamant in so far as I can see appears to be the criteria that needs to met/satisfied.

As a caution to all who are interested in SPK land, there is a lot of stuff on the net about this subject, and as I pointed out in my first contribution to this thread there is also a lot of rule bending that goes wither un-noticed and/or tolerated – but I am going according to the actual government printed Land Reform Act – in Thai (which is why I selected certain Thai words) in my comments here. If folk want to patch together notes from this or that article from Google or whatever, and there local Phu Yai Baan is happy to allow this or that rule to be bent, fine - if you're comfotable with that by all means go ahead. While by large the internet notes are generally correct, they are with very few exception, consice and complete in their coverage of the what is, is not allowed with respect to SPK 4-01 land, and my suggestion to you is that you get a copy of the rules.

On a distant and somewhat unrelated note, there are a whole bunch of other notes in the rules about SPK 4-01 land - in particular, not many folk know it, but their are some differances in the way the rules of SPK land are applied in repsect of the Hill tribes, as many of these folk do not have Thai ID's - which is another requirement to be allocated SPK - except, in respect of certain cases pertaining to the Hill tribes.

However, they are exceptions to the rule and in the context of the OP's original question, they are quite irrelivant.

หมู่บ้าน - means Muban, not so(?) and Muban is a village is it not??

ผู้ใหญ่บ้าน - means Phu Yai Ban, not so (?) and Phu Yai Baan is Village Headman is it not?

เทศบาลนคร or เทศบาลเมือง – means towns/cities/ muncipalities – somthing larger than a village – not so?

For those who don;t know - I have close on 20 years of experience in buying rural land in this country amounting to close on 1500rai, through what must be over a dozen transactions. When it comes to commenting on land titleship rules and regs, I amke a point of ensuring my comments are based on what the actual law/Act says - that has to be the most accurate way to go.

If anyone wants to point out something I have said that is incorrect, I am only to happy to be corrected. But get a copy of the Land Reform Act and the notes from the ARLO (Ag land Reform Office) - then come back and tell me I am wrong.

MF

[Khonwan]

Now we could argue the toss about amphur officials and pooyaibans, and I could assure everyone that as a SorPorKor land owner I have only ever had dealings with the Provincial Land Reform Office…or you could just recognize the thrust of the fault in your argument: a cosy chat with the relevant officials does NOT provide ANY protection against potential land confiscation in the face of non-compliance of the law. Funny how you are always selective in your argument.

I’ll let others do their own homework in settling this matter for themselves since, as you say, no one should be relying on advice over the Internet. I most certainly would not rely on advice from someone I have never met who says he owns 1,500 rai (somewhere)…particularly where that person first claims to own 1,200 rai, then 1,500, then 16++, then (now) almost 1,500 rai.

I have 200 rai – all Bor Tor 5, Sor Por Kor, and Zone C land. This comprised of 11 purchase transactions and several upgrade transactions. I have nearly 15 years in Thailand; purchased my first parcel of land nearly 13 years ago.

You can quote from your alleged copy of your old revision (1992?). There was another revision in 2001, I believe. And no, I don’t have a copy of that either – I have never needed it throughout my transactions with the Sor Por Kor office. I can quote one change in the Sor Por Kor rules between the Chuan (1st) government and Thaksin’s: cattle owners were allowed, by the former, to hold 5 rai per cow in contravention to the 50-rai-per-person rule – this was overturned by the latter. Is your copy current?

I’m not opining from Google, or the local library – I’m going on experience…relevant experience.

The OP has learnt from me of the very real and high risk of confiscation should he (if not a close member of the family) purchase such land. Any further nonsense is simply boring.

[slapout]

The advice given by many old timers here in Thailand "If you can't afford to lose it don't invest in it" still rings true. As Khonwan pointed out via his experience , the written law is not always the applied law. Futher to the former, written law is often debated and argued by proffesional trained legel beagles, with little agreement. A friend of mine told me, prior to my moving to Thailand, "When you think you understand Thailand and her ways you best be ready to leave" He lived here from 1945 (full time) up until his death a few years ago and thru his experience, gave invaluable advice to many, with the aforementioned caution.

[Saiyan]

MF and Khonwan,

Special request.

Both of you are great guys and your input at this forum is always invaluable.

Funny thing is that basically you are saying the same thing about SPK land.

Please don’t grab each other by the throat as the only loosers might be the members that appreciate your input.

[soundman]

Argumentative posts with insults etc. have been deleted. No more please.

If you two want to argue, please do it by PM or ignore each other, otherwise respect each other's right to present opinions/facts in the open forum and debate issues in a civil manner.

SPK land is an issue that many of us in the countryside will come accross once in a while. It would be great to keep this thread on topic as I believe the issue of SPK land, laws & actual reality in different jungwats/amphurs is of interest to may.

Thankyou.

[Khonwan]

Argumentative posts with insults etc. have been deleted. No more please.

If you two want to argue, please do it by PM or ignore each other, otherwise respect each other's right to present opinions/facts in the open forum and debate issues in a civil manner.

SPK land is an issue that many of us in the countryside will come accross once in a while. It would be great to keep this thread on topic as I believe the issue of SPK land, laws & actual reality in different jungwats/amphurs is of interest to may.

Thankyou.

Pity about that, but if you are interested in SorPorKor, you should have left in this part from my reply today:

Nakhon Sawan Provincial Land Reform Office have already been to my village and have told us all, at a public and official meeting, that such land can be transferred to close family at anytime so long as the person has attained the age of 20 with no mention that they must first lay down their lives.

Rgds

Khonwan

[Maizefarmer]

For the benefit of all - I am going to scan in those parts of the Land Reform Act which deal with SPK 4-01 - using the June 1997 printing as the referance - it came from parliment around March/May 1997.

Added will be the amendments and revisions since then till now, as published by the government printer. I believe i have all, but 2.

It will be in Thai - but will follow up with an English translation - my young daughter has agreed to give it a bash. All going to plan, will get it up first part of next week.

It will be up to date and hopefully equally accurate. Depending on member experiances of SPK 4-01 land, folk may well recognise differances between the law, and its practise (those who wish to add their personal experiances with SPK 4-01 land, please do).

Edited November 27, 2008 by Maizefarmer

[Khonwan]

This page http://www.alro.go.th/alro/eng_web/index.html (click on “Introduction of ALRO”, then “9 Rights in Using Benefits of ALRO Lands “) comes from the official website of the Agricultural Land Reform Office that issues and manages Sor Por Kor land. This page states “In case of decease, farmer can transfer rights to use benefits in land to the relatives.”

However, as has been said before, what appears to be clear cut in print isn’t always the case in the Land of Smiles. My wife had already phoned our local provincial branch of ALRO two days ago and was told again, and categorically, by the official for my area that the current Sor Por Kor land holder does not have to die before transferring the land to a close family member who has attained the age of 20 (just as the entire village had previously been told).

I asked my wife this morning to phone the Service Centre number listed on the website – 1764 - for confirmation by the head office. She did so. They told her to speak with one of the staff lawyers at their Information Service Centre - 02 281 06002. She did so. She was told exactly the same thing. Death is NOT a prerequisite before the land can be transferred to close family members. The chap explained, however, that the family member(s) who is/are to receive the land must be farmers….not doctors, bankers, etc. There is nothing new in this condition, of course.

I think this must surely settle the matter. Feel free, of course, to have your own Thai partner phone them to confirm this information; probably not a good idea for a farang to contact them.

The website page above also makes it clear that houses and other agricultural buildings are permissible – no mention that they must not be permanent constructions.

Rgds

Khonwan

P.S. I’m nursing a sore head and very painful ribs this morning – fell off a collapsible ladder yesterday (it collapsed under me!) whilst checking an electrical problem at a height of nearly 5 metres. Ouch!

[soundman]

I have a question with regards to SorPorKor land that I can't seem to get a definitive answer to from members of my family.

Apparently SorPorKor land is up-gradeable to other titles after a certain period of time. How much time, and what title, I have no idea, and cannot get a satisfactory answer from anyone.

Anyone gone through or witnessed the up-grading process?

Thanx.

[Khonwan]

Hi Soundman

Yes it is upgradeable but there is definitely no set time. To the best of my knowledge, you are powerless to influence the timetable. It could take a couple of years, or possibly 30, 40, whatever. It still belongs to the state until the state decides otherwise.

This whole argument about what owners can do and can’t do has perhaps distracted attention from the fact that the so called owners only own the right to use the land (and only for agricultural purposes), and to pass that right on to their close family members.

I believe (unless anyone else in different parts of Thailand have found otherwise) that upgrades (I believe usually to chanote, but perhaps first to Nor Sor 3) tend to happen in blocks, and that you cannot request upgrade.

Rgds

Khonwan

[finner]

The comment on upgrade from SPK to Nor Sor Sam is correct as per my gf's info. This is one reason Thaksin was so popular with the rural people because he was fast tracking this policy. Unfortunately my family's land in Ma Mien Tai (South Ma Mien) didn't get the upgrades but those in the next village Ma Mien Nua (North Ma Mien) did before he was tossed out. Apparently the upgrade from NS3 to Chanoot is a formality that can be easily done at the land office.

[Gary A]

There may still be restrictions after a chanote is issued. My wife bought 7 rai. It has a chanote and the survey markers are in place. The restriction was that the parcel could not be sold for five years after the chanote was issued. She went ahead with the deal and had her name placed on the back of the chanote as mortgage holder. The land office told her that was legal. The only danger is if the previous owner would decide to pay the mortgage and take the land back. He said he wouldn't do that but one never knows. She feels pretty safe since she also bought the adjoining 3 rai that was able to be legally sold. The 7 rai with the restriction has no road access without crossing her legally owned 3 rai.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Gary A

[mgjackson69]

The comment on upgrade from SPK to Nor Sor Sam is correct as per my gf's info. This is one reason Thaksin was so popular with the rural people because he was fast tracking this policy. Unfortunately my family's land in Ma Mien Tai (South Ma Mien) didn't get the upgrades but those in the next village Ma Mien Nua (North Ma Mien) did before he was tossed out. Apparently the upgrade from NS3 to Chanoot is a formality that can be easily done at the land office.

My wife has some land that is in process NS3 -> Chanote now. As far as I can tell it involves going around to a few different offices several times. Then wait a while. I get the idea that it is not difficult, just let the gears of bureaucracy grind away for a while.