Four legal and factual angles in the Khao Kradong Land case

The case of the disputed "Khao Kradong Land" in Buri Ram province has drawn widespread attention, particularly following the remarks on November 19 by Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, whose ministry oversees the Department of Lands. His statements have sparked debates among legal experts and public administration scholars. 

Here is a summary of the four key issues:

Issue 1: Anutin claimed that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Khao Kradong land dispute was binding only on the parties involved in the case, namely, the State Railway of Thailand (SRT) and the private individual who had filed the lawsuit.

This claim is inaccurate. The Central Administrative Court has affirmed that the Supreme Court's decision clearly established the ownership rights of the plaintiff, the SRT. The ruling can be used to assert those rights against third parties, contrary to the Department of Lands' argument that the judgment is binding only on the litigating parties.

This ruling by the Central Administrative Court was made in a case in which the SRT sued the Department of Lands for failing to revoke land ownership documents that had been unlawfully issued over SRT-owned land at Khao Kradong.

Section 145, Paragraph 2, Subsection 2 of the Civil Procedure Code also states: "A judgment that determines ownership rights over any property, in favour of one party, may be invoked against third parties unless such third parties can prove superior rights."

Issue 2: Anutin stated that there are over 900 plots of land at Khao Kradong, and if clarity is required, the SRT should file lawsuits for each plot individually.

This raised some noteworthy observations. Under the previous administration, when Bhumjaithai Party’s Saksayam Chidchob served as transport minister overseeing the SRT, the opposition demanded a no-confidence debate regarding Khao Kradong. They urged the SRT to evict occupants following the court’s ruling that confirmed the land at Khao Kradong belonged to the SRT. However, at that time, the SRT declined to file eviction lawsuits, citing a policy not to litigate against citizens.

In contrast, under the current administration, where the Bhumjaithai Party now oversees the Ministry of Interior and the Department of Lands, the call for lawsuits on a plot-by-plot basis has emerged — even though such action was avoided in the past.

What stands out is that the call for litigation follows a new administrative order by the Department of Lands, which refused to revoke the land ownership documents for Khao Kradong. This decision is deemed "final" in its administrative status.

To challenge this, the SRT would need to initiate new legal proceedings. However, the exact court with jurisdiction remains unclear. Before filing a lawsuit, the SRT must appeal the Department of Lands’ decision within 60 days. This process could delay the matter further, as extensions for appeals and decisions may also be sought.

Issue 3: The SRT typically resolves disputes over its land — where court rulings have already confirmed its ownership — by filing eviction lawsuits across all regions of the country. There has never been a case where the SRT has petitioned the Department of Lands to revoke ownership documents or filed a case in the Administrative Court to force the Department of Lands to annul title deeds.

The Khao Kradong case marks the first instance in history where such an approach has been taken, raising questions about whether the actions were intended to benefit specific parties. This occurred during a period when the Ministry of Transport, under the Bhumjaithai Party, had oversight of the SRT.

A civil law expert noted that in the Khao Kradong case, the SRT could leverage the rulings by the Supreme Court and the Administrative Court to file eviction lawsuits against all occupants of the over 900 plots at Khao Kradong. These lawsuits could be filed collectively to avoid allegations of selective enforcement, such as prioritising some plots over others.

Issue 4: A source from a state agency in Buri Ram province disputed the claims made by Anutin and other involved parties that of the 5,083-rai (813.28 hectares) Khao Kradong land, only around 200 rai (32ha) is held by a political family. Most of the land, they claim, is held by ordinary citizens.

According to the source, this information is incorrect. The entire 5,083-rai tract of Khao Kradong includes significant portions — several hundred rai — already allocated for public use by government agencies such as the Department of Highways and other state entities. These areas have been used for infrastructure projects, including roads and hospitals, under permission granted by the SRT.

Privately held land is concentrated among two major families, who collectively control nearly 1,000 rai (160ha). When combined with the land allocated to government agencies, these portions account for approximately one-third or even close to half of the total area of Khao Kradong.

The claim that political families own only a small portion of the land is inaccurate.

The suggestion that widespread eviction lawsuits would cause significant hardship to a large number of ordinary citizens is also misleading, as the majority of the contested land is not held by general citizens.