ข้อพิพาทเกี่ยวกับที่ดินของรัฐในประเทศไทย: คำวินิจฉัยเรื่องเขตอำนาจศาลปี 2026

ปรับปรุงล่าสุดเมื่อ 30 กันยายน 2569

Two 2026 rulings of the Committee on Jurisdiction between Courts, คำวินิจฉัยที่ 212/2569 และ คำวินิจฉัยที่ 213/2569, answer a question that terrifies property buyers in Thailand: what happens when a government agency says the land under your home, or under your condominium project, belongs to the State? The answer decides which court you must sue in, what you must prove, and how long you will fight. This guide explains both decisions in plain English and what they mean for foreigners who own, lease or plan to buy property in Thailand.

Why State Land Claims Matter to Foreign Buyers

Thailand has large areas of State land: forest reserves, public domain land used by all citizens (such as grazing land, canals and roads), and property registered to government departments. Under Section 1304 of the ประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์, public domain property of the State includes land kept for common public use, under Section 1305 it cannot be transferred except under a specific statute or royal decree, and under Section 1306 no one may plead prescription against the State over it. No matter how beautiful the title document looks, land that is legally State land can never become private land through occupation or purchase.

The problem is that the boundaries of State land were often surveyed decades ago, badly, or never at all. Families who occupied land since before the กฎหมายที่ดิน B.E. 2497 (1954) hold claims that collide with later State registrations. When the Treasury Department or a local authority registers a plot as State property, on a certificate called Nor Sor Lor (น.ส.ล.), everyone inside the boundary suddenly finds their land documents frozen: no upgrade to a โฉนด, no registered sale, no จำนอง.

Buyers of houses, villas and even condominium units on islands and in resort areas inherit these risks. That is exactly what the two new jurisdiction rulings deal with.

Ruling 212/2569: A Condominium, Six Plaintiffs and a State Property Certificate

In the first case, a นิติบุคคลอาคารชุด and five unit owners, six plaintiffs in all, sued the Bang Lamung subdistrict municipality, the Bang Lamung District Chief and the land official of the Bang Lamung branch land office in Chonburi. They said they held the land, recorded under old Tra Chong documents, through possession going back before the Land Code of 1954. The authorities had objected to land title applications and relied on a State property certificate (น.ส.ล.) covering land the plaintiffs said was theirs. The plaintiffs asked the court to order the objections withdrawn and the certificate revoked, while the authorities argued the land was public property used by all citizens.

The question was not yet who owns the land. It was which court decides. The dispute went to the committee that resolves conflicts of jurisdiction between the Courts of Justice and the Administrative Courts under the Act on Determination of the Competence of Courts B.E. 2542 (1999).

The Pattaya Provincial Court saw a land-rights case; the Rayong Administrative Court claimed it as unlawful administrative action under Section 9(1) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542. The committee sided with the Pattaya court. Objecting to a neighbour’s survey to protect State land is routine custodianship, not an exercise of legal power, and the plaintiffs’ real aim was a declaration of their rights in the land. Even though the defendants are government bodies, the heart of the case is “whose land is it?”, so it belongs in the ordinary courts (Courts of Justice).

Ruling 213/2569: A Koh Tao Holding Against a 1935 State Registration

The second case is the mirror image. A private citizen lived on and used about 12 ไร่ on Koh Tao. In 1935 the Corrections Department had registered the whole island as royal (State) property, and when the Land Code came into force in 1954 that registration was used to claim the entire island, so residents could not file their own possession notices (Sor Kor 1). In 1980 the Treasury Department re-registered the island as plot Sor Dor 588, overlapping her holding and blocking any land document from being issued. She asked the court to revoke that registration where it overlapped her land and to stop the agencies acting on a provincial announcement requiring residents to lease the land from the Treasury.

Here the committee ruled the opposite way: because the claim attacks the lawfulness of an administrative act (the registration of the area as State property), it is a claim to revoke an administrative order and belongs in the Administrative Court, as the Nakhon Si Thammarat Administrative Court had held against the Koh Samui Provincial Court. The committee also noted that other Koh Tao residents had brought the same kind of claim in the Administrative Court, where it was already pending before the Supreme Administrative Court. The Land Code B.E. 2497 and the State Property Act B.E. 2562 (2019) frame what the agencies may register and how.

The Dividing Line: Which Court Hears Your Land Dispute With the State?

Read together, the two rulings draw a practical line that every owner should understand:

สถานการณ์ของคุณ	Real question in the case	Competent court
The State (or anyone) says your land is public land and you say it is private: a contest over ownership or possession	Who has the better right in the land?	Ordinary courts (Civil/Provincial Court), Ruling 212/2569
You accept the framework but say an official act (a Nor Sor Lor registration, a survey, a revocation of your deed) was unlawful	Did the agency act lawfully within its legal powers?	Administrative Court, Ruling 213/2569
Your Chanote is revoked by the Land Department for being issued over State land	Usually both questions: strategy matters	Depends on how the case is framed; get advice before filing

Filing in the wrong court can cost a year or more before the jurisdiction question is even settled. These two cases each went through the full committee procedure before anyone argued about the land itself. Framing the case correctly at the start is not a technicality; it is the difference between deciding the dispute and litigating about where to litigate.

What This Means Before You Buy

1. A title deed is the beginning of due diligence, not the end

A Chanote issued over State land can be revoked no matter how many times it has changed hands. Serious การตรวจสอบสถานะทรัพย์สินในประเทศไทย checks the history of the parcel back to its first issuance, the surrounding State land registrations, and any forest reserve or public domain overlays, especially on islands and near beaches, where Ruling 213/2569-type conflicts are common.

2. Know your document

The strength of your position differs radically between a Chanote, a น.ส. 3 ก. and possession-only papers. See our guide to โฉนดที่ดินไทย, and if you are looking at land held only under Por Bor Tor 5 (ภ.บ.ท.5), a tax receipt and not a title, understand that in a contest with a State registration the occupier usually loses.

3. Condominium buyers are not immune

Ruling 212/2569 involved condominium unit owners. If the land under the project is contested, the juristic person and the owners are dragged into litigation collectively. Foreigners buying under the condominium quota should confirm the project’s land history, and house buyers should read how foreigners can legally own a house in Thailand while leasing or holding rights over the land.

4. Fraud and State claims often travel together

Deeds issued over State land often trace back to an irregular first issuance, and title documents can also be abused in other ways: in Dika 914/2569 on title deed fraud a buyer obtained a replacement deed by falsely reporting the original lost. If your deed’s history includes an unexplained first issuance in a protected area, treat it as a red flag.

If You Are Already in a Dispute

Act quickly and in the right order. Gather every document showing the chain of possession (ส.ค.1 filings, tax receipts, aerial photos, utility records). Identify precisely which official act harms you (an objection, a survey, a registration, a revocation), because that determines the forum and, in the Administrative Court, a strict filing deadline (generally 90 days from knowledge of the act for annulment cases). Then choose the forum deliberately: sue on ownership in the ordinary courts, or attack the administrative act in the Administrative Court. Our overview of the ระบบศาลในประเทศไทย explains how the two systems work side by side.

ตรวจทานครั้งล่าสุด: 28 กันยายน 2569 Rulings 212/2569 and 213/2569 of the Committee on Jurisdiction between Courts were read in Thai, with Civil and Commercial Code sections 1304 to 1306. The Land Code revocation power, the 90-day Administrative Court filing period and the statement on compensation for good-faith buyers were not re-read.

คำถามที่พบบ่อย

บทความนี้เขียนและตรวจสอบโดย Sebastien H. Brousseau, LL.B., วท.บ., practicing law in Thailand since 2004. If a government agency has objected to your title, registered State property over your land, or you want a parcel’s history checked before you buy, ติดต่อ ThaiLawOnline สำหรับการปรึกษาเป็นภาษาอังกฤษหรือภาษาฝรั่งเศส.

คำชี้แจง:บทความนี้เป็นข้อมูลทางกฎหมายทั่วไปที่อ้างอิงจากคำตัดสินของศาลที่เผยแพร่ ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำทางกฎหมายสำหรับสถานการณ์ของคุณ.