|
Thailand Land Tenure
Traditionally, the king owned all the land, from which he
made grants to nobles, officials, and other free subjects. If
left uncultivated for three years, the land could be taken back
by the crown, but otherwise it could be passed on to heirs or
mortgaged or sold. At the same time, there was abundant
unoccupied cultivable land that by tradition and custom could be
cleared and used by a farmer, who after three years of continuous
cultivation established informal rights. The concept of
individual ownership of the land was introduced during the reign
of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, 1868-1910), and beginning in 1901
formal title could be acquired.
The titling of land in the mid-1980s was based on a land code
promulgated in 1954. The 1954 code established eight hectares as
the maximum permissible holding except where the owner could
manage a larger holding by himself. This limitation was generally
ignored, however, and was rescinded four years later. A title
deed (chanod tidin) giving unrestricted ownership rights
ordinarily was issued only after a cadastral survey. At least two
prior steps were required before the prospective landholder could
obtain a full title deed. Application was first made to occupy
and cultivate a piece of unused land, and a temporary occupancy
permit (bai chong--reserve license) that carried no title
rights was received. After 75 percent of the land had been
cultivated, the landholder could secure an exploitation
testimonial (nor sor). This gave him the right to occupy
the land permanently and to pass the property on to heirs; in
effect it was an assurance that a title deed eventually would be
forthcoming. Transferring the land through sale, however, was
extremely difficult, and the exploitation testimonial was not
usually accepted by banks as collateral. In the case of
squatters, a special occupancy permit (sor kor) could also
be obtained, unless the land was in a permanent reserved forest
or was intended for public use. Satisfactory development could
then lead to the issuance of an exploitation testimonial and
ultimately a full title deed.
The issuance of title deeds, which proceeded at a relatively
slow pace in the early 1950s, quickened somewhat during the
remainder of the decade. By 1960 the total number of title deeds
for agricultural land had reached 1 million, although there were
3.4 million agricultural households (this total included an
unknown number of tenants' households). The pressure for titles
of various kinds increased during the 1960s and 1970s as the
number of farm holdings expanded rapidly. In an effort to
expedite the processing of title deeds, the Department of Land of
the Ministry of Interior resorted in the 1970s to the use of
aerial photography in lieu of land surveys.
In the 1980s, a substantial component of the nation's
dominant smallholder group nevertheless lacked full title to the
land it worked. By 1982 the total number of title deeds was 3.9
million. A 1976 estimate placed the proportion of farm holdings
having formal title at about 60 percent. The lack of full title
by the remaining 40 percent created not only a sense of
insecurity for the landholder but also presented a barrier to
securing needed credit.
A major question in the mid-1980s concerned the legalization
of farm holdings outside recognized areas for land acquisition.
An unknown but substantial number of holdings had been
established by squatters--many of them hill people--in the
reserve forests, which, according to the central government, were
not eligible for titling, although the de facto possession of
such holdings was recognized by local authorities. Observers
pointed out that in many cases of forest encroachment the
occupied land was incorrectly classified and in fact was suitable
for cultivation (some reclassification was reported in the late
1970s). It also appeared that in the drafting of the country's
land laws there was an underlying assumption that agricultural
land meant the lowlands; in other words, the land in mountainous
and hill areas was considered nonagricultural. Thus, a large part
of the North was not even included in the land registration
system, and the hill peoples of the region were therefore unable
to acquire legal title to the land they used.
Data as of September 1987
|
