Tired of developer’s threats to leave their homes, Phuket residents plea for justice

[webfact]

Tired of developer’s threats to leave their homes, Phuket residents plea for justice
Darawan Naknakhon


Ronham Songkhao holds up photos of a backhoe in action at the site. Photo: Darawan Naknakhon

PHUKET: -- Residents who have staved off months of threats allegedly delivered by henchmen hired by a developer ordering them to leave their homes filed a formal complaint at Phuket Provincial Hall yesterday (June 16).

At 10am, more than 30 residents from the Sratonpoe Community in Baan Palai, Chalong, led by spokesman Ronham Songkhao, arrived at Provincial Hall and filed a complaint with the Damrongtham Centre (provincial ombudsman’s office).

Mr Ronham told Damrongtham Centre chief Prapan Khanphrasang that the reason for the visit was to follow up on a previous complaint sent to the Prime Minister’s Office on May 3.

More than 50 residents have been told to leave their homes and move out of the area by a land developer who claims to have land titles for the land on which they live.

It is alleged that the developer has sent men in black uniforms to threaten residents and has used a backhoe to clear the area and demolish homes.

The land developer has also filed an encroachment report against the residents and that this issue has been sent to court.

Mr Ronham stated that according to a land survey, the 85 rai of land in dispute was originally a tin mine. However, the current residents have lived there since 2003.

The developer has been telling residents that this piece of land has changed hands numerous times and that he acquired it in 2008, Mr Ronham said.

In 2013, the developer presented a Chanote land title as proof that he is the rightful owner of the site. The Chanote was issued on December 26, 2012.

Since that time, the residents have been continuously subjected to threats and told to leave, Mr Ronham said.

The residents will return to Provincial Hall on Monday (June 22) to check on the progress of their complaint and have threatened not to leave their homes until they are given an answer by officials.

Source: http://www.thephuketnews.com/tired-of-developer-threats-to-leave-their-homes-phuket-residents-plea-for-justice-52806.php

-- Phuket News 2015-06-17

[Just1Voice]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

[steelepulse]

This has been ongoing for a while with some violence thrown in the mix. That chanote issued on Boxing Day might need a look into it.

[Gunna]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

No matter if they are rich or poor unless you have a legally issued Chanote or Lease, they can't continue to live there.

Are they paying rent to anyone

Or are they just squatters who moved onto some unoccupied land

I bet you wouldn't allowed them to stay if you could have bought that land - hypocrite

[Sviss Geez]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

Or, rather, if what the OP states is correct, action by the owner of the land to ask those who are apparently living on his property without permission to leave so that he can exercise his right to do what he wants with his own property. Presumably if the unfortunate residents had any right to be there that would have been mentioned.

As things stand it appears that the "not so rich", as you put it, are depriving the developer of his rights, not the other way around.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Sviss Geez

[masquerade]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

No matter if they are rich or poor unless you have a legally issued Chanote or Lease, they can't continue to live there.

Are they paying rent to anyone

Or are they just squatters who moved onto some unoccupied land

I bet you wouldn't allowed them to stay if you could have bought that land - hypocrite

And you can back up you arrogance with proof he has a legal Chanote or Lease. Until then these people have the right to stay in their homes without threat until the legal proof is legally verified.

[masquerade]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

Or, rather, if what the OP states is correct, action by the owner of the land to ask those who are apparently living on his property without permission to leave so that he can exercise his right to do what he wants with his own property. Presumably if the unfortunate residents had any right to be there that would have been mentioned.

As things stand it appears that the "not so rich", as you put it, are depriving the developer of his rights, not the other way around.

Presumably if the unfortunate residents had any right to be there that would have been mentioned. And why would it be mentioned, wouldn't that defuse the biased reporting? Are you another one of these that believe everything you read or is just your arrogant ignorance showing?

[steelepulse]

In past news reports, it has been shown that the squatters are there illegally and the legal owner does have title ( dubious or not, he has it). However, they are proving very hard to move so thugs have been called in in the past to try and get them out.

[eisfeld]

So if the residents can't provide any right to the land be it ownership or lease or usufruct or whatever and the the legal owner wants to execise his right to the land, why doesn't it go through the court and police to evict the residents?

Why does it always have to come to usage of thugs and threats?

[razer]

Good for them. Fight back. Empower the people and the elite ain't so elite. They are out numbered.

[snowgard]

And you can back up you arrogance with proof he has a legal Chanote or Lease. Until then these people have the right to stay in their homes without threat until the legal proof is legally verified.

WRONG!!! They can't lives on land what not belongs to they!!! Who gives they this right? This land never belongs to they. But if someone have a chanot this person is clear the owner. The chanot is legal so long as it is proofed that it is illegal. Not the other way!!!

If the owner want do it more hard him can sue this people for breach of the peace and SUBSEQUENTLY sue rent from 2008 to now.

[Farma]

Interesting post from sunbelt re squaters rights on this thread. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/453357-squatting-rites-in-thailand/

Posted 2011-03-22 17:58:31

If a person occupies unused Chanote land in a peaceful manner (ie without intimidation or force) without leasing or being a dependent of the owner, and possesses the property with the intention of being the owner, ie builds on the land, then he may acquire the ownership of the property by adverse possession under Section 1382 of the Civil and Commercial Code after 10 years of uncontested occupation. If the owner of the property builds on the land then it is not considered unused and adverse possession does not apply.
If the land is not Chanote but one of the lesser titles then the period of occupancy may be as low as one year under Section 1375 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

http://www.sunbeltlegaladvisors.com

[Acharn]

This has been ongoing for a while with some violence thrown in the mix. That chanote issued on Boxing Day might need a look into it.

I agree I'm suspicious of it, but not because of the day it was issued. Christmas and Boxing Day aren't Thai holidays. I would have liked to hear how these residents believe they have title to the land their homes are on.

[Acharn]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

Or, rather, if what the OP states is correct, action by the owner of the land to ask those who are apparently living on his property without permission to leave so that he can exercise his right to do what he wants with his own property. Presumably if the unfortunate residents had any right to be there that would have been mentioned.

As things stand it appears that the "not so rich", as you put it, are depriving the developer of his rights, not the other way around.

LOL! You know how my favorite member of parliament (after Police Captain Chalerm), Chuwit Kamolvisit, got into politics? He tore down a whole bunch of shops on Sukhumvit Road because he owned the land and wanted to build something, but they had leases from the previous owner of the land and refused to move. He brought in a couple hundred "off duty" Army guys and a couple of bulldozers at 3:00AM and by 8:00AM it was an empty lot. Thaksin was furious, but they eventually worked everything out. It's now the Queen Sirikit Park or something like that, and Chuwit got into politics afterward.

[harrry]

And you can back up you arrogance with proof he has a legal Chanote or Lease. Until then these people have the right to stay in their homes without threat until the legal proof is legally verified.

WRONG!!! They can't lives on land what not belongs to they!!! Who gives they this right? This land never belongs to they. But if someone have a chanot this person is clear the owner. The chanot is legal so long as it is proofed that it is illegal. Not the other way!!!

If the owner want do it more hard him can sue this people for breach of the peace and SUBSEQUENTLY sue rent from 2008 to now.

A person who lives on land for more than a certain period has rights to that land "

Section 1382. Where a person has, for an uninterrupted period of ten years in case of an immovable, or five years in case of a movable, peacefully and openly possessed a property belonging to another, with the intention to be its owner, he acquires the ownership of it.

Thai CIvil and Commercial Code....

Now just who is WRONG!!!!!!!!!

[snowgard]

If you copy and past something please do it with the additional informations:

Section 1367. A person acquires possessory right by holding a property with the intention of holding it for himself

Section 1368. A persn may acquire possessory right through another person holding for him.

Section 1369. A person who holds a property is presumed to hold it for himself.

Section 1370. A possessor is presumed to possess in good faith, peacefully and openly.

Section 1371. If it is proved that a person possessed the same property at two different times, it is presumed that his possession continued during the interval.

Section 1372. It is presumed that a possessor has, in law, the right which he exercises over the property possessed.

Section 1373. Where property is an immovable entered in the land registered, the person whose name is on the register is presumed to have possessory right over it.

Section 1374. Where a possessor is disturbed in his possession by unlawful interference, he is entitled to have the disturbance removed. If further disturbance is to be apprehended, the possessor may apply for an injunction.

An action for removal of disturbance must ne entered within one year from the time of the disturbance.

Section 1380. Transfer of possession is effected when the transferor, while continuing to hold the property, declares an intention to hold it thenceforward on behalf of the transferee.

If the property is held by his representative, the transfer of possession may be effected by the transferor directing such representative thenceforward to hold the property on behalf of the transferee.

Section 1381. Where a person holds property as representative of the possessor, he may change the nature of his holding only by a notice to the possessor that he no longer intends to hold the property for such possessor or by becoming in good faith, through the act of a third person, possessor under a new title.

Section 1382. Where a person has, for an uninterrupted period of ten years in case of an immovable, or five years in case of a movable, peacefully and openly possessed a property belonging to another, with the intention to be its owner, he acquires the ownership of it.

[snowgard]

So how they have the rights for holding the land if they know it belongs to a mine company?

Did they try to register it on their name? No, because they know they can't do it.

Section 1382 it's written he acquires the ownership of it.

But first after it is registered. What they not done!!!

Edited June 17, 2015 by snowgard

[Balance]

Who is responsible for certification of land titles? How can someone get a chanote in 2012 if the land is held by another person. I am assuming that the "residents" are homeowners and have one (another example of the piss poor journalism standards)? And where are the police and courts in this? It is incredible that some fool can destroy property without a court ruling.

[snowgard]

Easy to say.

The land was property from a mining company.

After they stopped working there the villagers move illegal on the land. They never had the rights to do it.

The mining company (land owner) saled the land to the new owner.

The ownership changed more times with legal landpapers.

The last owner got a chanot and told the illegale villagers to piss off.

Him are the owner and has every right to clean the land out of illegal people!!!

Everyone who believe the landpapers are not right, can go to the landoffice and let proof the ownership. And go to court too.

But so long the landpapers are legal. And for sure the villagers got more than one deathline date where they must had mmoved out but they don't done it.

Edited June 17, 2015 by snowgard

[Jonmarleesco]

This has been ongoing for a while with some violence thrown in the mix. That chanote issued on Boxing Day might need a look into it.

'That chanote issued on Boxing Day might need a look into it.' It might well need looking into. But I'm not sure why Boxing Day - an essentially British holiday - should have anything to do with it.

[Jonmarleesco]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

Or, rather, if what the OP states is correct, action by the owner of the land to ask those who are apparently living on his property without permission to leave so that he can exercise his right to do what he wants with his own property. Presumably if the unfortunate residents had any right to be there that would have been mentioned.

As things stand it appears that the "not so rich", as you put it, are depriving the developer of his rights, not the other way around.

LOL! You know how my favorite member of parliament (after Police Captain Chalerm), Chuwit Kamolvisit, got into politics? He tore down a whole bunch of shops on Sukhumvit Road because he owned the land and wanted to build something, but they had leases from the previous owner of the land and refused to move. He brought in a couple hundred "off duty" Army guys and a couple of bulldozers at 3:00AM and by 8:00AM it was an empty lot. Thaksin was furious, but they eventually worked everything out. It's now the Queen Sirikit Park or something like that, and Chuwit got into politics afterward.

It's nowhere near Queen Sirikit. How long have you lived here? It's Chuwit Park, and he tore down a night market - granted, that didn't make his approach any more right.

[jacko45k]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

Or squatters who made a land grab now elevating it into a land claim.

Sadly the poor normally lose in these cases.

[espinoza]

More greed by the rich to deprive the not so rich.

Or, rather, if what the OP states is correct, action by the owner of the land to ask those who are apparently living on his property without permission to leave so that he can exercise his right to do what he wants with his own property. Presumably if the unfortunate residents had any right to be there that would have been mentioned.

As things stand it appears that the "not so rich", as you put it, are depriving the developer of his rights, not the other way around.

Does this land owner have the right of taking the law in his own hands? Or should he do this in the normal legal fashion?

[stevenl]

I don't think he can follow the normal legal procedure. This has been going on for quite some time now, and I think there is something fishy about the paperwork.

Or, rather, if what the OP states is correct, action by the owner of the land to ask those who are apparently living on his property without permission to leave so that he can exercise his right to do what he wants with his own property. Presumably if the unfortunate residents had any right to be there that would have been mentioned.

As things stand it appears that the "not so rich", as you put it, are depriving the developer of his rights, not the other way around.

Does this land owner have the right of taking the law in his own hands? Or should he do this in the normal legal fashion?

Edit: Sorry for missed quotes, app or connection problem.

Edited June 18, 2015 by stevenl

[Nobb]

It does not matter how long they lived there if they do not have land titles very simple they have to leave!

[stevenl]

It does not matter how long they lived there if they do not have land titles very simple they have to leave!

I don't think that is correct.

[harrry]

It is actually the same in many countries. If a person occuupies land for a period and the purported owner is not succesful through legal means (the courts) in getting them evicted it shows that the owner has not considered the land of such importance to him. To the extend the law allows he loses the right to the land and it passes to the occupier.