Thailand Golf Course Land Dispute: Minister Faces Ownership Challenge
A controversy surrounds the land ownership of Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s golf course in Pak Chong district, Nakhon Ratchasima. The Land Department has deferred responsibility to the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security (MSDHS), escalating the dispute. Allegations that the golf course overlaps land designated for agricultural reform raise questions about the legality of its acquisition and development.
The dispute’s origins lie in the land’s ownership history. According to Land Department Director-General Pornpoth Penpas, the title deed for Mr. Anutin’s golf course stems from a 1972 MSDHS self-help settlement project. Over 1,000 individual plots were initially allocated to villagers. Regulations stipulated that after five years of use, the land could be reclassified as Nor Kor 3 status and upgraded to a full title deed under the Land Code. Villagers could then sell the land after five years of holding the title deed.
This process underpins the current dispute. Mr. Anutin maintains he legally purchased the land from villagers holding legitimate title deeds. He emphasizes his due diligence in investments, noting the land changed hands multiple times—six or seven, he estimates—before his acquisition. He insists all transfer procedures, including fee payments, were properly followed. He argues that any irregularities originated with the initial title deed issuance some 60 years ago, and responsibility rests with the officials involved then. He further contends that if an error is proven, the Land Department should compensate him based on the property’s current market value.
However, media reports alleging irregularities have focused attention on the land’s history. Following a Friday meeting between Mr. Anutin and Mr. Pornpoth to clarify ownership rights, Mr. Pornpoth publicly stated that while the land was legally acquired from villagers, the potential overlap with agricultural land falls under the MSDHS’s jurisdiction as the original allocator. He effectively redirected responsibility, suggesting the MSDHS address inquiries concerning the land’s designation and potential expansion into the golf course area. He even dismissed a joint site inspection proposal from the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives as futile.
This complex land dispute highlights the intricacies of land ownership and historical land use policies in Thailand. The case raises crucial questions about land conversion oversight and potential conflicts of interest when land designated for specific purposes, such as agricultural reform, is used for private ventures. Several key questions remain unanswered: Will the MSDHS accept responsibility for clarifying the land’s status? Will an investigation into the original land allocation be conducted? How will this dispute affect Mr. Anutin’s golf course? The answers will have significant implications, not only for those involved but also for broader discussions surrounding land management and transparency in Thailand.
