You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

November 13, 2025

Legal Options for Addressing Challenges with Land Matters in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

The Land Department in Thailand’s Ministry of the Interior (MOI) plays a central role in ensuring the stability and legality of real estate transactions in the country. Its core responsibilities include issuing land title deeds, registering transactions (e.g., sales, mortgages, leases), conducting surveys for subdivision or consolidation of land, and providing information and guidance on land and property development laws.

These administrative functions secure investor confidence and support transparency in the Thai property market, so any delay can have a significant impact. This is especially true for investors who depend on timely registration to secure or transfer property rights. Delays can create liquidity risks, postpone project timelines, and even reduce Thailand’s attractiveness as a real estate investment destination.

This article explores the nature of these challenges, the legal framework governing the timelines for administrative actions, and remedies available under Thai law.

Sources of Delay

Procedural delays at land offices can arise for a variety of structural and operational reasons. These include approval processes that require several levels of internal review, heavy staff workloads, and occasional communication gaps within the bureaucratic chain. Many processes still rely upon manual documentation, which can prolong administrative steps and increase the likelihood of bottlenecks.

Some delays stem from ongoing investigations into the legality of land titles. For example, a land title deed may have an annotation indicating that the title deed is under investigation to verify its legality. Even though this annotation does not legally prohibit the sale or transfer of the land, in practice, most prospective purchasers are reluctant to proceed with a transaction until the annotation is removed. As a result, the land can become effectively illiquid during the investigation period, leading to significant investment delays.

While such investigations are essential to maintaining the integrity of Thailand’s land registration system, prolonged inquiries without clear timelines can affect investor confidence and obstruct legitimate commercial activity.

Timelines for Administrative Action

Thailand has taken important steps to address concerns about bureaucratic delays by enacting legal instruments that impose procedural timelines on government agencies, including the Land Department. Two of these are outlined below.

Act on the Determination of Timeframes in the Justice Process B.E. 2565 (2022)

The Act on the Determination of Timeframes in the Justice Process B.E. 2565 (2022) requires all government agencies under the MOI, including the Land Department, to establish and publicly announce clear timelines for the completion of administrative tasks. Affected agencies must ensure that these timelines are accessible and understandable to the public. If an official cannot complete a process within a prescribed timeline, he or she must record the reason for the delay, specify the estimated completion date, and notify relevant parties. A record must also be available for verification and audit.

Land Code

The Land Code sets a specific timeline for investigations concerning irregularities in land title issuance. Once an investigation has been ordered, it must be completed within sixty days. An investigation committee may recommend extending this period for up to an additional sixty days, if necessary, by issuing a report, after which a Land Department Officer or authorized delegate must issue a final decision within fifteen days.

These provisions are designed to ensure that inquiries do not remain pending indefinitely. However, the law also allows the investigation period to be extended when deemed “necessary,” and the law does not explicitly specify how many times such an extension may be granted. In practice, therefore, officers may consider granting an extension more than once.  This discretionary flexibility can contribute to prolonged or unpredictable delays.

Available Remedies

If the Land Department’s action or inaction causes undue delay, affected parties have the right to claim damages and seek revocation of unlawful orders issued by officials. Thai law provides several administrative and judicial remedies to expedite or rectify such a situation.

 Administrative Complaints to Expedite the Process

  • Damrongdhama Center: Individuals can submit complaints through the MOI’s Damrongdhama Center (a complaint-handling unit) either in person, by post, via telephone hotline, through a mobile application, or online.
  • Direct complaint to the Land Department: Parties may file a petition directly with a Land Department officer or with the provincial or branch Land Office responsible for the area in which the matter arose.

These channels can prompt internal reviews and often help move pending matters forward.

Civil and Administrative Claims for Damages

  • Civil liability: Under Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code, a person who suffers loss due to a wrongful act by an official may claim compensation. The Supreme Administrative Court has affirmed this principle.
  • Administrative liability: The State Officials Liability Act B.E. 2539 (1996) allows for claims against the state for wrongful acts (e.g., asking the court to revoke unlawful orders) committed by government officers in the course of their duties. Under the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996), parties may also challenge unlawful or unreasonable administrative decisions or delays. The Administrative Court has ruled in several cases that excessive or unjustified delays can amount to administrative misconduct subject to judicial review.

Criminal Proceedings for Misconduct

In severe cases involving intentional wrongdoing or abuse of authority, criminal prosecution may be available under the Thai Penal Code, together with the Land Code.

Outlook: Remedies and Reform

The primary focus of legal remedies is to address individual cases rather than systemic inefficiencies. Delays involving land matters in Thailand, however, often reflect broader administrative challenges, such as limited resources, complex procedural requirements, and the need for modernization.

Sustainable reform therefore requires a systemic approach, as timely and predictable land administration will be able to sustain investor confidence and support the continued growth of Thailand’s real estate sector. Although legal mechanisms are in place to address delays, true efficiency depends on long-term administrative reform and digital modernization within the related government agencies.

Mindful of this broader context, investors or property owners facing prolonged delays or legal uncertainty should prepare necessary documentation, maintain clear communication with authorities, and seek proper professional legal assistance.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
July 3, 2026
Thailand will keep its reduced government fees for property sale and mortgage registration in place for another year. Two Ministry of Interior notifications, issued following a cabinet resolution on June 30, 2026, and published in the Government Gazette on July 1, 2026, extend the previously reduced fee levels through June 30, 2027. The reduced registration fees apply to the sale and mortgage of the same property types covered in prior versions of the scheme: detached houses, semidetached houses, row houses, commercial buildings, land transferred together with such buildings, and condominium units. To be eligible for the reduced fees, the purchase price, the officially assessed value, and the mortgage amount must each not exceed THB 7 million, and the buyer must be a Thai individual. The reduced registration fees for eligible sales and mortgages are calculated as follows: Sale: 0.01% of the official assessed value (reduced from standard rate of 2%) Mortgage: 0.01% of the mortgage amount (reduced from standard rate of 1%) The reduced mortgage registration fee applies only if the mortgage is registered at the same time as the sale of the property.
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More