Chief Faces Probe Over Demolitions: National Parks

[binjalin]

Thank you guys but I think we are now running around in circles. I hope people have now a more clear idea about what really is going there and I don't think an other link to a legal site explaining the different land titles is really necessary.

As reasonableman said, the ball is now in the camp of the government.

If there is a lesson for us at our small level, it is to advise our wife or local partner that, if it's not full chanote, don't buy.

exactly - no full chanot don't buy - and these resorts didn't have the full chanot

[binjalin]

http://www.thailandl...itle-deeds.html

Por. Bor. Tor. 5 (P.B.T. 5), is an evidence showing that the occupier of a plot of land has been issued a tax number and has paid tax for using the benefit of the land. This confers no right at all but was formerly used to establish that the holder was occupying a plot of land and could apply for a Sor Kor 1.

This confers no right at all

case closed

Wrong again.

You have the right to buy and sell the land. Therefore the argument of the resort owners that they have legally purchased the land is valid. it's also prove that the argument of the forest department that they encroach on forest land is false and only used to create an emotive reaction from outsiders without knowledge of the problem.

The only problem is a zoning problem. These lands were originally for agricultural purpose. The only thing the resort owners are "guilty" of is to use the land for an other purpose the the originally intended one. You may notice that the courts orders are for the removing of the resorts, not to vacate the lands. Despite what some people want us to believe, there is no encroaching, no illegal occupation of the land here.

The last thing is these restriction on the use of the land was decided in the 70's, a very different time. There are currently negotiation to amend them to reflect the changes that have happened during the last 40 years.

Sorry for all the people who were expecting some juicy gossips about big names encroaching on national park and poaching wild life, it's just a boring zoning problem in rural areas.

you still don't seem to 'get it' they had NO RIGHT to build on the land - no one is arguing about ownership only USE - the resorts were illegal as the land was not designated for building to PROTECT the environment.

In my view the resort builders have no case (unless they pay their way out of this). Its the same in any country with zones - you can't build in a zone without the proper title.

[Katipo]

It would be nice to see the people of Thailand come out and support someone who is a) actually carrying out his job with integrity , and doing something for the betterment of Thailand. Is anyone else thinking the Green Shirts?