What Can Or Can't Be Done On Public Canal Land?

[skraach]

I've seen on many titled deeds, especially in current or former rice growing areas, land marked as "lam meuang" or "meuang satharana prayot". On one piece of land in an urban area, an approximately 3 metre wide section of canal land extends into the midle of a square piece of land, almost cutting it in half. The canal does not exist anymore and no evidence of it can be seen on the site, but it is there on the title deed.

If someone bought this property, what could they do on this section of government land? Can they enclose it with a fence that goes around the freehold property? Can they build a house, a shed, a road over it? If not, what about plant trees, plant a garden, raise animals on it? Or does it have to be left completely untouched?

[BrianCR]

Depends on how much money you offer the local land department official - if you offer enough he will take a rubber (eraser) and wallop, it never existed in the first place! Just a suggestion

[skraach]

Does anyone know whether you can officially buy this kind of land from the government if it is next to or protruding into your land? Or once government land, always government land?

[doggie888888]

I am no expert, nor do I claim to know anything about this issue. However here is my observation in based on pattaya.

There is a hotel and other property owners who have done illegal extensions that block a certain canal in south pattaya. This causes flooding but other than a few newspaper reports everytime it floods, the canal still has not been cleared as far as I know.

Near where I live, there are 2 public access lanes to nearby beaches that were blocked off a few years ago. The land on either side and the lane itself have since been sold and developed. Voila, public asset had become private property. Nobody even batted an eyelid, not even the residents nearby who now need to walk further away to access the beach.

Some beaches are now being claimed as private beaches, security makes it clear you are not welcome although I am not sure what happens if one refuses to budge.

I have been told that on the beach side of walking street, all the shops there are illegal construction, yet they are still there.

So your question may appear to be logical but the answer I think may be flexible.

Edited March 22, 2013 by doggie888888

[skraach]

I am no expert, nor do I claim to know anything about this issue. However here is my observation in based on pattaya.

There is a hotel and other property owners who have done illegal extensions that block a certain canal in south pattaya. This causes flooding but other than a few newspaper reports everytime it floods, the canal still has not been cleared as far as I know.

Near where I live, there are 2 public access lanes to nearby beaches that were blocked off a few years ago. The land on either side and the lane itself have since been sold and developed. Voila, public asset had become private property. Nobody even batted an eyelid, not even the residents nearby who now need to walk further away to access the beach.

Some beaches are now being claimed as private beaches, security makes it clear you are not welcome although I am not sure what happens if one refuses to budge.

I have been told that on the beach side of walking street, all the shops there are illegal construction, yet they are still there.

So your question may appear to be logical but the answer I think may be flexible.

Thanks for those observations.

I'm going to call our local land office and see what they say about the this kind of land. Will post the response.

[trajan]

I have seen letters where the local amphur office gives express permission for access rights over a public canal (such as a foot or vehicle bridge over a canal)....

[skraach]

Called the land office and was told that public canals are under the jurisdiction of the thesaban. Will contact our local thesaban in person.

Meanwhile, an engineer friend told me that the correct thing to do is to dig out the public canal and line it with concrete. Then you can lay concrete slabs over the top to hide it and allow vehicles to pass over it. He also said that some land owners lay concrete sewer pipes in the public canals and then backfill with soil and build over the top. This is not officially allowed, so they have to pay off the thesaban to do this.

[cheeryble]

Called the land office and was told that public canals are under the jurisdiction of the thesaban. Will contact our local thesaban in person.

Meanwhile, an engineer friend told me that the correct thing to do is to dig out the public canal and line it with concrete. Then you can lay concrete slabs over the top to hide it and allow vehicles to pass over it. He also said that some land owners lay concrete sewer pipes in the public canals and then backfill with soil and build over the top. This is not officially allowed, so they have to pay off the thesaban to do this.

your la-muang may be under the tesabahn but some small and large waterways are under a national authority whose name escapes me.

You need to check, though if it's "dead" then if the tesabahn says it's theirs I'd go with that.

Your friend is kinda right about the culvert, though I would be concerned about just doing it myself, depending on what it's importance is ie under the house?

I needed an entrance drive across, well quite a long way along, a la-muang, and asked the tesabahn.

They kindly had a guy make up a plan at no charge, then costed it.

It was a tesabahn civil engineer who made the plan, but a private company (possibly a "friend" of the tesabahn, who knows) which gave the "bid" I believe. It may or may not have become problematical if I had said "I'll do your plan myself or get outside prices"? I'd say haggle it down to a happy medium, pay them and worth this bit of extra expense to avoid any future problems once and for all.

Edited March 28, 2013 by cheeryble

[skraach]

Called the land office and was told that public canals are under the jurisdiction of the thesaban. Will contact our local thesaban in person.

Meanwhile, an engineer friend told me that the correct thing to do is to dig out the public canal and line it with concrete. Then you can lay concrete slabs over the top to hide it and allow vehicles to pass over it. He also said that some land owners lay concrete sewer pipes in the public canals and then backfill with soil and build over the top. This is not officially allowed, so they have to pay off the thesaban to do this.

your la-muang may be under the tesabahn but some small and large waterways are under a national authority whose name escapes me.

You need to check, though if it's "dead" then if the tesabahn says it's theirs I'd go with that.

Your friend is kinda right about the culvert, though I would be concerned about just doing it myself, depending on what it's importance is ie under the house?

I needed an entrance drive across, well quite a long way along, a la-muang, and asked the tesabahn.

They kindly had a guy make up a plan at no charge, then costed it.

It was a tesabahn civil engineer who made the plan, but a private company (possibly a "friend" of the tesabahn, who knows) which gave the "bid" I believe. It may or may not have become problematical if I had said "I'll do your plan myself or get outside prices"? I'd say haggle it down to a happy medium, pay them and worth this bit of extra expense to avoid any future problems once and for all.

Thanks for sharing how you delt with your situation. Sounds like the best way to satisfy both parties.

[cheeryble]

You're welcome.

Thought we'd lost you.

(ps: it was a bit over engineered but I guess you'd expect that.)