THE PROBLEM OF UNFAIRNESS REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES FROM THE REVOCATION OF RIGHTS OVER REAL ESTATE IN THAILAND

Abstract

          This research aims to investigate the legal inequities concerning the determination of damages arising from the revocation of rights over immovable property in Thailand. The study examines the exercise of discretion by state agencies and the courts in assessing damages related to the revocation of such rights. Frequently, the determined damages do not correspond to the actual value of the rights revoked by state officials or the courts, thereby adversely affecting the legitimate rights holders. The objective is to establish guidelines for amending relevant laws, ensuring that holders of rights over immovable property genuinely benefit from such legal provisions. The researcher found that, historically and presently, the revocation of rights over immovable property in Thailand remains an inadequately and improperly resolved issue, causing substantial detriment to those whose rights are revoked. This deficiency stems from the absence of sufficiently clear legal measures for determining damages, specifically: 1) The Administrative Procedure Act, B.E. 2539 (1996) does not stipulate concrete criteria for determining damages arising from the revocation of rights over immovable property by administrative orders; 2) The Act on Liability for Wrongful Act of Officials, B.E. 2539 (1996) fails to establish criteria for determining damages resulting from tortious acts infringing upon rights over immovable property; and 3) The Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999) does not mandate the inclusion of committees or real estate valuation experts in court proceedings concerning the revocation of such rights, unlike the provisions found in the Expropriation and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, B.E. 2562 (2019). Consequently, the current mechanism for assessing damages from the revocation of rights over immovable property is inequitable. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the aforementioned laws be amended.