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​ 

May 2, 2024
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) announced on April 19, 2024, that it has jointly set up an in-court arbitration pilot project with five courts in Thailand—namely, the Civil Court, Taling Chan Civil Court, Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Samut Prakan Provincial Court, and Samut Prakan Khwaeng Court. The pilot project launched on May 1, 2024. Pilot Project This project is designed to encourage the parties in cases submitted to these courts to consider having parts of the case, or even the entire case, heard and determined by arbitrators under the Civil Procedural Code (CPC). The objective of the project is to provide faster and more efficient judicial services to the public by reducing the number of cases to be fully tried in the courts through providing an option for parties to engage in in-court arbitration. Still, the court remains largely involved in the process, as the court will consider the award in detail before determining whether to render a judgment in accordance with the award without any edits. Therefore, in-court arbitration favors parties who prefer to have a court judgment instead of an out-of-court arbitral award, which could lead to enforcement challenges under the Arbitration Act. Parties who participate in this pilot project will pay the TAI a fee for its administrative assistance and related services. The TAI will assist in setting up and facilitating meetings, witness hearings, and the necessary logistics pertaining to case files involving the arbitrators, the parties, and the court. After the arbitrators hear the case, the case files, including the witness statements, exhibits, and reports during the arbitration proceedings, are collected and sent back to the respective court along with the award. Under the pilot project, the arbitrators will issue awards within 30 days of the last day of the trial or
Read More
April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More
April 11, 2024
Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any
Read More