PUBLISHED: 7 Jan 2025 at 05: 01
After a senator questioned the Department of Lands ‘ ( DoL ) investigation procedure, deputy prime minister Anutin Charnvirakul has insisted that the Ministry of Interior has handled the Khao Kradong land dispute case lawfully and fairly.
Mr. Anutin, who is also the Interior Minister, attended an Upper House meeting on Monday to discuss the property dispute in Buri Ram territory.
Senator Nantana Nantavaropas claimed at the meeting that the Central Administrative Court ordered the State Railway of Thailand ( SRT ) and the DoL to work together to investigate the 5 083 rai boundary line in the Khao Kradong area on March 30, 2023.
The debate involves 900 property title deeds, 12 of which, in overall, numbered 179 ra, apparently belonged to the Chidchob household.
Ms. Nantana claimed at the time of the meeting that one of the four DoL members of the probe committee was the SAO’s chief, whose name bears the initial” Sor” and has the initial” Sor.”
The senator questioned the legitimacy of the visit of this person, claiming that they had previously competed in the SAO key election for the” Phuan Navin Group,” which was allegedly connected to the Chidchob family.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision in 2021 that the property belongs to the SRT, it was revealed on October 22 that the land committee had voted to reject the property papers.
The question is “how the Interior Ministry does resolve the issue and if the DoL may be forced to comply with the court buy,” said Ms. Nantana.
Mr. Anutin responded by saying he had no knowledge of or connections to the lawmaker Ms. Nanthana mentioned.
He resisted that Section 61 of the Criminal Code be applied to the establishment of the council.
” I commanded that both parties ‘ inquiries been conducted in the most fair manner.” He declared,” I have never and will never unjustly interfere in the function of the authority.”
Mr. Anutin added that the Criminal Court’s decision was made in connection with claims brought by SRT and landowners.
” The Criminal Court attempt did not cover all disputed property, nor refer to all 5, 083 ray of disputed land”, said Mr Anutin, adding that the judge order was misinterpreted and unjustly claimed.