Deputy Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul has insisted that the Ministry of Interior has lawfully and fairly handled the Khao Kradong land dispute case after a senator questioned the Department of Lands' (DoL) investigation procedure.
Mr Anutin, who is also the Interior Minister, on Monday joined an Upper House meeting session regarding questions over the disputed land in Buri Ram province.
During the meeting, Senator Nantana Nantavaropas said that the Central Administrative Court issued on March 30, 2023, an order for the State Railway of Thailand (SRT) and the DoL to jointly investigate the boundary line of the 5,083 rai in the Khao Kradong area.
The dispute involves 900 land title deeds, 12 of which, in total, numbered 179 rai, reportedly belonged to the Chidchob family.
Ms Nantana said during the meeting that one of the four members of the probe committee appointed by the DoL was the chief of the sub-district administration office (SAO), whose name has the initial "Sor".
The senator considered the appointment of this individual as suspicious, saying the person competed in the SAO chief election under the "Phuan Navin Group", which was supposedly linked to the Chidchob family.
However, it was revealed on Oct 22 that the land committee unanimously resolved not to revoke the land documents despite the Supreme Court ruling in 2021 that the land belongs to the SRT.
"The question is how the Interior Ministry will resolve the issue and if the DoL will be pushed to follow the court order," said Ms Nantana.
In response, Mr Anutin said he did not know or have any connection with this particular politician whom Ms Nanthana mentioned.
He insisted that the committee was established under Section 61 of the Criminal Code.
"I ordered that the probe be conducted with utmost fairness for both parties. I have never and will never unlawfully intervene in the work of the authority," he said
Mr Anutin further said the Criminal Court's order was given on lawsuits between SRT and residents living on the land.
"The Criminal Court order did not cover all disputed land, nor refer to all 5,083 rai of disputed lands," said Mr Anutin, adding that the court order was misinterpreted and wrongly claimed.