In a surprising development, the State Railway of Thailand (SRT) finds itself at odds with the Department of Lands (DoL) over land titles issued in the picturesque Khao Kradong region of Buri Ram. As tensions rise, the SRT’s governor, Veeris Ammarapala, announced that the agency filed an appeal on Tuesday, challenging the DoL’s decision. This move follows an order from Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit, aiming to revisit a ruling that contradicts a 2021 Supreme Court decision in favor of the SRT.
The disagreement centers around a committee formed under Section 61 of the Land Code, tasked with determining the precise boundaries of the Khao Kradong area. This decision has puzzled many, as it stands in stark contrast to the Supreme Court’s confirmation that the disputed 5,083 rai of land rightfully belongs to the SRT.
Amid this bureaucratic tug-of-war, Mr. Veeris outlined the SRT’s proactive steps to resolve the ongoing land dispute. Should the DoL opt to annul the land ownership documents, the SRT plans to offer lease agreements to the current occupants, ensuring a lawful and harmonious resolution that keeps all parties in compliance with legal standards.
Throughout this tumultuous process, the SRT has maintained a steadfast commitment to transparency and fairness, according to its governor. Yet, political intrigue is never far from the surface. In the swirling mists of the controversy, Bhumjaithai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul, who also serves as the interior minister, insisted there is no friction between his party and the ruling Pheu Thai Party in this saga.
As Mr. Anutin, overseeing the DoL, and Mr. Suriya from Pheu Thai guide the SRT, the Bhumjaithai leader emphasized his detachment from the dispute. He assured the public that the responsible agencies are diligently resolving matters under the law’s watchful eye. Despite speculative whispers about his interest, Anutin maintained, “I have nothing to do with the Khao Kradong area and have no reason to protect anyone’s interest.”
Meanwhile, Jullapong Yooket, a People’s Party list MP, articulated the public’s bafflement over the DoL’s controversial decision not to revoke the land titles. “The public can’t help but wonder why the decision contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling and how this land saga will end,” he lamented, reflecting the confusion and curiosity surrounding the land drama.
The complexity of the Land Code, layered with DoL regulations and administrative law, has left many in a state of puzzlement. Jullapong questioned if hidden influences are at play, hinting that some committee members might possess connections to powerful figures, potentially deepening the intrigue surrounding the Khao Kradong land conflict.
As these fiery debates continue to unravel, those invested in the saga—whether due to political ties or public interest—await a resolution that aligns with the principles of justice and clarity. How this tale of land, law, and political maneuvering will unfold remains a topic of suspense and compelling debate in the heart of Thailand’s bustling political and legal landscapes.
This land dispute is absurd! Why can’t the government agencies just get their act together and follow what the Supreme Court already decided?
Exactly! How does a lower committee overrule a Supreme Court decision? Smells fishy to me.
Fishy indeed, but it’s all about power plays. Someone’s trying to flex muscles here.
It’s more complex than it seems. These boundaries have historical significance, and we can’t just ignore decades of land usage by locals.
That’s fair, but shouldn’t the laws and rulings protect both history and current settlements? It’s a delicate balance but necessary.
I wonder how many times this kind of issue has happened in other parts of the world. Thailand is just the latest chapter in a long story of land disputes.
Why is the Bhumjaithai Party so defensive if they’ve got nothing to hide? Anutin’s statement raises more questions than answers.
Political maneuvering is complex. Anutin’s deflections might just be strategic, not necessarily suspicious.
Perhaps, but usually where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Something doesn’t add up.
Or maybe they’re just caught in the crossfire of two major parties and are trying to save face.
Let’s not forget about the environmental impact here. Khao Kradong needs protection, regardless of who’s running the show.
So true! But if the land is privatized, what guarantees are there for conservation?
That’s exactly why transparent ownership is important. Public interest should prevail over private gains.
There’s definitely some puppet masters behind this scandal. Why else would they ignore a Supreme Court ruling?
Might be true, but without solid evidence it’s all conjecture. We need facts, not just whispers.
I just hope a peaceful resolution is found soon. Too many livelihoods are caught in the limbo because of this mess.
This case is a perfect example of how disjointed government operations can be. How could the DoL make such a significant error?
It could be intentional ‘errors’ made through political pressure. Who knows if there are incentives to maintain the status quo?
It’s a possibility, but I think it’s more about bureaucratic inefficiency than conspiracies.
I visited Khao Kradong last year. It’s such a beautiful place. I hope all this political drama doesn’t ruin it.
Too many rich city folk trying to take what’s not theirs. Let the locals keep what’s theirs!
It’s important to respect local rights and traditions, but legal frameworks exist for a reason. Balance is key.
These land disputes seem to pop up every election cycle. Coincidence? I think not.
Does anyone know if there’s a tourism impact due to this dispute? I imagine fewer visitors if it’s a big headline.
I doubt it. Tourists usually don’t care about political squabbles unless it disrupts their stay.
Good point, Jon. But if the area became restricted or contentious, it could definitely affect tourism negatively.
The DoL’s stance contradicting the Supreme Court is practically asking for a constitutional crisis. Let’s see if the judiciary steps up.
Beyond ownership, the focus needs to be on sustainable use of the land.