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​ 

October 10, 2022
Thailand’s recent removal of cannabis from the list of narcotics represents a significant development for the country, and it has some human resources teams wondering whether they should prepare certain measures in order to prevent detrimental incidents from happening in their organizations. For example, some employees could still be under the influence of cannabis because they used it before coming to work. In the past, this was rarely a consideration as cannabis was clearly banned. Using cannabis or possessing cannabis inside the employer’s premises subjected employees to criminal liability including imprisonment and fines. However, now that the government has removed cannabis from the narcotics list under the Narcotics Act, such incidents are more likely to occur. This likelihood has led to concern among many employers about how they can prevent or handle these incidents. An employer does have the right to prohibit any employee from bringing cannabis inside its premises, as it is the property of the employer. The employer has the management right to do this, particularly as an employee’s use of cannabis may very well disturb other employees. But if the employer would like to set penalties for breaching the prohibition, the picture is more complicated. Employers’ Work Rules Under the Labour Protection Act (LPA), an employer who has at least 10 employees must have Thai-language work rules. These work rules must include the following items: Specification of working days, regular working hours, and rest periods; Holidays and rules for taking holidays; Rules concerning overtime work and work on holidays; Arrangements for payment of wages (i.e., schedule and location); Overtime pay, holiday pay, and holiday overtime pay; Leave and rules for taking leave; Discipline and disciplinary actions; Submission of grievances; and Termination of employment, severance pay and special severance pay. To issue or amend work rules (e.g.,
Read More
October 3, 2022
Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led some manufacturers to reduce costs by changing production methods, designs, or machinery, or reducing the number of employees on payroll. While these strategies may reduce costs and help their business survive, they may also result to lower quality goods. In the worst case, however, these poor quality goods may cancel out or even outweigh a manufacturer’s cost savings if the products are deemed to be unsafe for consumers under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (officially the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act). The Product Liability Act has been in force for 14 years. However, there have been few landmark Supreme Court decisions related to it as most cases are settled before the final judgment. Consequently, most business owners have limited knowledge of the precedent cases and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for claims of damages due to an unsafe product. The Product Liability Act identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators (individuals and entities) as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be penalized under the law: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified; Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements of the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. Therefore, real estate and services are excluded from the Product Liability Act. However, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, and by the
Read More
September 15, 2022
In the course of our work, we often hear about consumers in Thailand lodging complaints with the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) about problems with a purchased product or service. The OCPB is a government agency attached to the Office of the Prime Minister. Its main duties are to protect consumers in Thailand with respect to product advertising, product labeling, and contracts, and to handle consumer complaints. However, there are exceptions to the types of consumer complaints that the OCPB can handle. This is because some consumer complaints must by law be handled by certain specialized agencies. Examples of these exceptions include consumer complaints relating to: health products (food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, household dangerous substances, and narcotics); medical services; insurance; pricing of consumer products; condominium juristic person; public land; rail, water, and air transportation; tourism; education; banking and finance; telecommunications; and electricity and water consumption. Procedure When a consumer complaint that the office can accept comes to the OCPB, the officers first consider whether the business operator has violated any laws, in which case the relevant authorities, such as the police, should handle the matter. When the officers consider it appropriate, they may ask the parties to mediate the dispute. Complaints in Bangkok are mediated by officers at the Bangkok OCPB. For complaints lodged in other provinces, the governors of the provinces may assign officers or agencies under their supervision to mediate. The OCPB can mediate twice within 90 days. If the parties still want to continue with the mediation, a subcommittee of the Consumer Protection Board (CPB)—the body that directs the OCPB—will then conduct two more mediation sessions within 90 days. If a resolution is still not reached, the subcommittee can conduct one additional mediation session before declaring the mediation failed and ending the complaint
Read More
September 6, 2022
One unique element of Thailand’s current court procedure is in the way records of witnesses’ courtroom testimony are created. Instead of using a court stenographer to create a verbatim record, the typical method used in Thai courts is for the judge to provide a summary of the witnesses’ courtroom statements. After listening to a witness’ answers to the parties’ questions, the trial judge speaks a summary of the witness’ answers—according to the judge’s own understanding—into an audio recorder, and a court clerk then transcribes it so that it can be read for all parties and the witness to confirm the accuracy of the content. However, Thailand is now exploring ways to update this practice with a system that creates video recordings of witness testimony. Creating a video record of witness testimony was introduced into the Thai court system for some court cases handled by the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and the Central Bankruptcy Court. However, recording video of witness testimony was not done in general criminal or civil cases until an October 2021 regulation allowed use of video recording in certain important cases and when a witness’ movement is an important element of the testimony. Since then, video of witness testimony was recorded in some criminal cases when the movement of the witness during the testimony was an important factor for the court to consider in deciding the case, such as an eyewitness testifying about a defendant’s movement in committing a crime. So far the practice has remained rare, but it has been done enough to demonstrate the viability of the practice. Now that this has proved ready, Thailand is considering widening the use of video recording for witness testimony in all court cases, starting with criminal cases in Bangkok. Recording witness statements on video is thought
Read More