Bangkok: Mr. Supachai Jaisamut, Chairman of the Bhumjaithai Party’s Legal Working Group, has raised pertinent questions regarding the legal proceedings surrounding the Alpine Golf Course and Khao Kradong Golf Course. Addressing Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior Phumtham Wechayachai’s commitment to apply equal standards to both cases, Mr. Supachai sought clarity on the legal intricacies involved, particularly with historical land transactions and judicial outcomes.
According to Thai News Agency, the issues trace back to the late 1960s when Mrs. Nuam Chamnanchatsakda bequeathed 732 rai of land to Wat Thamikararam Worawihan. Upon her death, instead of the land being transferred to the temple, complications arose when Phra Ratchamethaphon, the former abbot, expressed intentions to sell the land. The executors opposed this, leading to the Mahamakut Foundation being appointed and eventually selling the land to Alpine Real Estate Company and Alpine Golf and Sports Club Company in 1990.
Mr. Supachai highlighted that the land’s ownership transition faced legal challenges when it was sold to Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra. In 2001, the Director-General of the Land Department nullified the land’s registration, classifying it as monastic land. However, in 2002, Mr. Yongyuth Wichaidit reversed this decision, which later resulted in his prosecution for malfeasance. The National Anti-Corruption Commission found Mr. Yongyuth guilty, leading to a two-year prison sentence in 2020.
The Khao Kradong land case has encountered its own set of complications. A committee formed in 2009 under the Land Code’s Section 61 concluded that the title deed issuance was proper and lawful, a stance upheld until 2021 when the State Railway of Thailand pursued legal action for revocation. The Administrative Court ordered a reevaluation, but the committee reaffirmed their previous decision, maintaining the title deed’s legitimacy.
Recently, Mr. Phumtham directed Deputy Minister of the Interior Mr. Decha Isam Khaothong to form a new committee to reexamine the Director-General’s non-revocation decision. This resulted in an August 2025 order to revoke the land title deed, prompting Mr. Supachai to question the legality and implications of these actions.
Mr. Supachai underscored the apparent discrepancies and questioned who might be held accountable, given the involvement of high-ranking officials in the decision-making process. He expressed concern over whether the Khao Kradong case might culminate similarly to the Alpine case, resulting in imprisonment for those deemed responsible.