Land Encroachment in Agricultural Land Reform Areas : A Case Study of Wat Pa Chana Jai, Saraburi Province

Abstract

The Agricultural Land Reform Act B.E. 2518 (1975), as amended by the Agricultural Land Reform Act (No. 3) B.E. 2532 (1989), was enacted to equitably allocate agricultural land to farmers and landless persons in need. However, in practice, land within agricultural land reform zones has been utilized in contravention of the legislative intent, as evidenced in the case of Wat Pa Chana Jai, Saraburi Province, which was alleged to have unlawfully encroached upon and occupied over 2,000 rai of land under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO) without authorization. This study aims to analyze the relevant legal framework, comprising the Agricultural Land Reform Act B.E. 2518 (1975), as amended (No. 3) B.E. 2532 (1989), the Land Code Section 9, Sections 362 and 365 of the Criminal Code, and the Regulations of the Agricultural Land Reform Committee on the Delegation of Authority to the Secretary-General of the Agricultural Land Reform Office to Consider and Authorize the Use of Land for Public Utilities and Other Activities within the Land Reform Zone B.E. 2536 (1993).

The study identifies six significant legal issues: unauthorized encroachment upon and occupation of ALRO land; use of land for religious purposes exceeding the limits prescribed by the regulations; commercial exploitation of state land; inadequacy of the land use monitoring and inspection system in practice; criminal liability of state officials for dereliction of duty under Section 157 of the Criminal Code; and the offense of public fraud under Sections 341 and 343 of the Criminal Code arising from the commercial exploitation of state land without legal title. Notably, although the Agricultural Land Reform Act B.E. 2518 (1975), as amended (No. 3) B.E. 2532 (1989), does not expressly prescribe criminal penalties for encroachment upon land within agricultural land reform zones, such conduct is nonetheless subject to prosecution under the general provisions of the Criminal Code. The core issue therefore lies not in the absence of applicable legal provisions, but rather in the evidentiary and fact-finding limitations that arise when applying the offense of trespass under Sections 362 and 365 of the Criminal Code to the specific context of ALRO land, which is held under a distinctive form of ownership vested in ALRO by law and presents factual circumstances that differ materially from ordinary trespass upon immovable property.

The author therefore proposes three recommendations. First, standardized evidentiary guidelines and protocols should be developed specifically for prosecuting land encroachment cases within agricultural land reform zones, by requiring ALRO to prepare a standard evidentiary package comprising: a boundary map of the agricultural land reform zone issued pursuant to the relevant Royal Decree with sufficient accuracy for criminal proceedings; a certificate confirming ALRO's ownership status under Section 36 bis; and an official record certifying that no authorization has been granted over the disputed land, verified by a competent official, together with clear coordination procedures between ALRO, investigating officers, and public prosecutors, so as to ensure that the fact-finding process operates effectively and results in the actual prosecution of offenders. Second, the Regulations of the Agricultural Land Reform Committee on the Delegation of Authority to the Secretary-General of the Agricultural Land Reform Office to Consider and Authorize the Use of Land for Public Utilities and Other Activities within the Land Reform Zone B.E. 2536 (1993) should be revised to require the National Office of Buddhism to submit applications for the use of ALRO land for religious purposes in lieu of private entities, together with a clear inter-agency integration mechanism drawing upon the authority already vested in the National Office of Buddhism under the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 (1962). Third, the existing land use inspection system within agricultural land reform zones should be reviewed and strengthened to ensure practical and effective enforcement, by allocating resources from the Agricultural Land Reform Fund under Section 9 across three areas: land database development, field-level inspection supported by a land reform volunteer network, and legal enforcement in coordination with relevant agencies.