In an unexpected twist in the ongoing land saga in Buri Ram’s Khao Kradong area, Deputy Interior Minister Songsak Thongsri has stepped into the fray to justify a land committee’s controversial choice. Despite a Supreme Court ruling in 2021 that unequivocally declared the land as belonging to the State Railway of Thailand (SRT), the committee resolved not to rescind land title documents for the plots in question.
Here lies the epicenter of a dramatic power tussle between the SRT and the Department of Land (DoL) — a sprawling 5,083-rai dispute in Khao Kradong’s lush surroundings in Muang district. The SRT is on a valiant quest to reclaim what it declares is its rightful land, pinning accusations of malfeasance on the DoL for doling out land papers to squatters.
Adding more beads of sweat to the bureaucratic brow, the Central Administrative Court threw its legal weight behind the SRT, compelling the DoL to partner with the railway body for a detailed boundary analysis of Khao Kradong. This prompted the DoL to establish a committee to delve into the complexities under Section 61 of the Land Code. However, the shocker came when the land committee unanimously favored not revoking the documents, a decision the DoL’s head gingerly accepted.
Amidst the rumblings and hue, eyebrows are raised and questions fly—can an administrative decision really trump a Supreme Court judgment?
In a backdrop resembling a political thriller, Mr. Songsak, a figure from the influential Bhumjaithai Party, stood his ground on Monday, clarifying that he holds no allegiances in this matter. He hinted at layers of complexity and facts unknown to both the public and the SRT that might just tip the scales of justice.
He argued that a deep delve into the Supreme Court’s ruling is imperative to discern its reach—pertaining either to merely those entangled in this intricate land knot or to a broader audience. Songsak assured that the door remains ajar for the SRT should they wish to challenge the DoL’s conclusion, yet he noted the absence of ironclad evidence to nudge the land committee toward a revocation of the disputed titles.
Dismissing whispers of undue influences within the committee, especially considering ties to a shadowy figure in Buri Ram, Songsak assured that the committee was formed in strict accordance with regulations, and any breaches will bear judicial consequences.
A tale of land noblesse and modern sport intertwines here as whispers point out that within the examined deeds, 12 span a total of 179 rai, allegedly linked to the powerful Chidchob family. Known for their political clout under the Bhumjaithai banner, the family transformed the plots into thriving enterprises like the Buriram International Circuit and an impressive 32,600-seat football stadium.
Justice Minister Tawee Sodsong also weighed in this week, shedding doubt on whether the committee’s pronouncement could truly eclipse the Supreme Court’s authority. He emphasized the necessity for the SRT to pursue further stratagem.
The uproar is partially rooted in history: the map provided to the Supreme Court by the SRT dates back to 1996. Crafted per a provincial committee’s land encroachment resolution aiming to tackle issues raised by the Assembly of the Poor, this map doesn’t mirror the one folded into a royal decree from 1921. That decree originally sanctioned the purchase of land for the northeastern rail system, which played a pivotal role in the committee’s choice not to annul the DoL’s issued titles.
As the dust swirls in this land of tenacious territories and political plays, all eyes keep a sharp watch on the next move in this gripping saga. As the wheels of justice grind on, who will ultimately possess Buri Ram’s contested prize, and at what cost?
This seems like a case of bureaucratic overreach. How can a committee’s decision override the Supreme Court?
It’s concerning indeed. The judicial system should be the final authority. I wonder if this is just political maneuvering.
Exactly my thoughts, there’s something fishy about this whole situation.
People need to chill. Committees form and take time to interpret decisions in context. The most important part is to get all the facts right.
Sounds like another example of the powerful protecting their own interests. The Chidchob family seems to have their hands in everything!
Agreed. It’s these connections that muddy what’s right. But legal ownership is complicated by historical context too.
True, historical laws can sometimes justify these, but still, favoritism shouldn’t prevail.
Can’t believe you’d say that. It’s just land use for development!
Keeping titles seems unfair to those who followed rules. Shouldn’t the SRT have some certainty in protecting their assets?
SRT must leverage its resources for a better assertive stance. Local influences mustn’t trample their rights!
It seems like local committees and the central government need better alignment. Mixed signals can derail rightful authority.
I agree, Gracie! Consistency is key to clear legal implications.
Exactly, uniformity in law should anchor enforceability, otherwise chaos ensues.
Improvement is needed, but expecting perfect synchronization isn’t practical with varied agendas.
Khao Kradong must be preserved for future generations irrespective of the tug-of-war involved.
12 plots tied to a political family are part of this scandal? Surprise, surprise! Power and land never stray far.
Can’t blame them for using resources at their disposal, but claims should stand legal scrutiny.
Songsak’s comments are a dodge. When will officials own up to their decisions?
Judicial power usurped by administrative might! This episode shows either courts’ teeth need sharpening or gov reform!
Real reform is needed but addressing it means confronting entrenched interests which is tricky.
Absolutely, steering against the wind of longstanding power structures isn’t desirable for majority.
The article doesn’t mention squatters’ rights. Does Buri Ram currently have laws protecting them?
This is exactly why there should be limits on land acquisition by politicians. Conflicts of interest everywhere.
Policing land ownership could help, but can’t totally erase political influence.
I think the historical aspect can’t be ignored. Maps from 1921 might not reflect contemporary reality.
Yes, but doesn’t negate existing legal rights. Reconciling history with present laws is essential.
Balancing legal consistency with dynamic shifting situations is indeed a legislative challenge.
This feels like just another saga of governmental incompetency. Seriously, follow the court rulings!
Songsak claims to hold no allegiance, yet somehow he sides with the controversial choice?
It’s possible he’s seen data we haven’t, but acting neutral amidst controversy is often misleading.
Interesting to see how justice unfolds in Thailand’s system versus some western countries’ systems.
At the end of the day, modern development is essential! Let’s not be stuck in the past.