We have filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.

Our Appeal of Rayong Court Order will be posted after translation. We thank the co-owners and other how has supported our group.

Below is the Rayong court "Decision" with the judges’ double talk, which makes no since if compared with Issue 8 and 9 and their maps.

Things will become clearer after we post our appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

We are encouraged in our appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court because of the fair and correct pass decision. In their last decision they have stated they will need to address the issue of measuring as applied in Issue 9. But they only ruled on a procedure court issue. Now it time to appeal for the Supreme Court to decide this Issue 9 measurement question.
The hearing judge gives his conclusion in a “statement” to the other three judges the they write the “Decision” both documents are found below:
***********************************************

Decision ( Dtoh. 18)

GARUDA

Number of Black Case: 54 / 2550
Number of Red Case: 49 / 2552

In The King Sign’s Manual

Rayong Provincial Administrative Court

31 March 2009

Plaitiffs Mr. T, 1st
Mr. A, 2nd
Mr. J, 3rd
Mr. R, 4th
Mr. M. , 5th
Mr. U, 6th
B . 7th
S. 8th
B. 9th
M 10th

Plaint Receivers Officers of Pattaya City Hall 1st
View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. 2nd

Matter: Disputed Case concerning Miss-Conduct of State Officials


Page 2/
In this case, The 10 Plaintiffs entered an Action and added on their
Plaint stated that, the 10 Litigants hold possessions of condominium units and live in Jomthien Complex Condotel, Located at Thappraya Road, Moo 12, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province. The 10 Plaintiffs were damaged
by the procedure of 1st Plaint Receiver by issuing the construction license to construct the building with the License No.: 162 / 2550, issued on: 28 November 2549, permitted View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to permanently construct 1 tall building /or An extraordinary large building, type of building: Koh. Soh. Loh., consisting of 27 floors with the roof terrace, 912 units with 24 shops, for living purpose with the total space: 101, 469 Square Meters, parking space: 11, 708 Square Meters – capacities of cars: 418 cars, swimming pool area: 1,134 Square Meters, Length of pipes: 1, 261 Meters, Located on the land Title Deed No: 104606, and No: 123238 and No: 1149 is the Servitude of land No: 104606, and No: 123238, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province. The building’s
territory connects to Jomtien Beach separated by a garden and Jomtien beach pathway As for Jomthien Complex Condotel, it is located on the west side of, and next to the building which received the Construction Permit which was issued by 1st Plaint Receiver. For 1st Plaint Receiver to issue a Construction License to any buildings to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act BE. 2522 however, apart from considering its structural strength and safety, the Master plan, Area plan and Attachments with the Plans which had been submitted with the application for Construction must be up for consideration also, but it appeared that 1st Plaint Receiver had issued the Construction License without following Standards, Procedures and Conditions stipulated in Clause 3 of the Ministry Regulations Issue 8 (2519) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which had been amended and added by Clause 2 of the Ministry Regulations-Issue 9 (2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which fixes the area within 200 meters, by measuring from the Construction Control Boundary, as shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to enforce the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province,

Page 3/
B.E. 2521, Along the Sea Sides to be Prohibited Areas for Buildings with the height over 14 meters and the permission was also in violation with Clause 4 of the Ministry Regulations Issue 33 (2535) promulgated to be in accordance with the Building Control Acts B.E. 2522 which had been amended and added by Clause 7 of the Ministry Regulations Issue 50 (2540) promulgated to be in accordance with the Building Control Acts B.E. 2522 which fixes the outer edge of Tall Buildings OR Extraordinary Large Buildings, whether the height above or under the ground, it must be away from the other person’s land / or public road no less than 6 (six) meters, however, it dose not include Foundation of building. The aforementioned building which was granted the Construction License has the constructed building on the Land Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238 which are the lands of View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. and it has the South Wing is the outside edge of building, located just only 1 (one ) meter away from the Land alignment of Land Title Deed No: 1149 which owned by Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee, therefore it was contrary to the law for issuing that Construction License. Apart from this, if the building is continue constructing until it is completed, it will certainly block and change wind directions which always blow through Jomthien Complex Condotel, and also it will block Sea view sceneries of Jomtien Beach which will impact physical and mental conditions of 10 Litigants and also the other residents who live in Jomthien Complex Condotel. Because the building which granted the Construction License by 1st Plaint Receiver consists of 27 floors or is 81 meters tall, which is nearly as tall as the Condominium that the 10 Plaintiffs live in.

After 1st Plaint Receiver permitted View Thalay Jomtien Condominium
(1999) Co., Ltd. to construct its building, in this present time, the company has started on Landscaping and Pilling which have caused Crack Lines and Parts falling off from the building of Jomthien Complex Condotel, and it also has never had Dust Spreading Prevention from the Construction. They have caused Air pollution and impacted respiratory systems of the 10 Plaintiffs. The 10 Litigants and other Residents of Jomthien Complex Condotel had officially tried to ask for Justice and made an

Objection the permission of construction to 1st Plaint Receiver, and also made complaints to involved government sections all along, but the suffering has never been minimized, so the 10 Plaintiffs then had to institute the prosecution to the court of law.

Page 4/
May the Court kindly give a Judicial Decision to cancel the Construc-
tion license / Modify License or / Demolish License No: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 and order to suspend the construction until the Judicial Decision is given because the 10 Litigants would be severely damaged until it can not be solved in the future, if the building is still being allowed to continue with its construction.

The Court gave an Order to call View Thalay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to be The Interpleader of this case and fixed it to be 2nd Plaint Receiver.

The Court gave an order to place an Injunction to minimize Injurious consequences before Judgment by ordering 2nd Plaint Receiver to suspend the construction issued by the Construction License No.: 162 / 2550, Issued on: 28 November 2549 before another order or the final decision is given. Both Plaint Receivers lodged their Appeals against the Order of the First Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court gave an Order to cancel the order of the First Administrative Court by allowing 2nd Plaint Receiver to suspend its construction issued by the aforementioned License just for the parts of building which are higher than 14 meters from road surfaces until another order or the judgment is given. After that, 2nd Plaint Receiver submitted a plaint to request the court to revoke the aforementioned Injunction and the court gave the order to lift the aforementioned Injunction on 16 January 2008. Later on, 1st up to 6th Litigants and 8th up to 10th lodged an Appeal against the Order of Lifting the Injunction given by the First Administrative Court and The Supreme Administrative Court gave an order to stand with the order of the First Administrative Court.

6th and 7th Litigants submitted Notes of 20 February and 17 January 2008 respectively, requested to withdraw the plaint and the court gave an order on 10 March and 7 February 2008 granted 6th and 7th Litigants for the withdrawal respectively.

1st Plaint Receiver testified and added on its testimony that, By Section 9
of the Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 stated that, Incase any Ministerial Rgulations was promulgated to fix any matter following Section 8 already, Local government officials must follow that Ministerial Regulations by Virtue of Section 15 of The Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, The Minister of Ministry of the Interior had promulgated the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which to fix the Area within 100 meters by measuring from the CCL Construct Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Control Acts BE. 2479, over the regions of Banglamung, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE 2499, along the Sea Sides to be the prohibited areas for construction of buildings taller than 14 meters. Later on, the Ministry Regulations-Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control

Acts B.E. 2479 which cancelled the statement in Clause 3 of the Ministry Regulations-Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479, and stipulated to use the new statement instead, by fixing the area within 200 meters, measuring from the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521, Along the Sea Sides, to be Prohibited Areas for Buildings with the height over 14 meters. On 1 March B.E. 2547, 2nd Plaint Receiver by its Managing Director Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee had submitted a letter dated on 25th February B.E. 2547 to 1st Plaint Receiver stated that 2nd Plaint Receiver has been the owner of the Land Title Deed No: 1149, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, wished to construct a condominium building, therefore it requested 1st Plaint

Page 6/
Receiver to fix the distance of 100 meters from MSL on the copy of aforementioned Land Title Deed as had been attached by 2nd Plaint Receiver. 1st Plaint Receiver therefore assigned Mr. Chawalit Jariyayanyong, Traffic Survey Official to survey for the distance of 100 meters from MSL +0.00 Meter to fix the prohibited areas for buildings taller than 14 meters as stipulated in the Ministry Regulations Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 and send the result of survey together with the aforementioned copy of Land Title Deed which already fixed the distance of a 100 meter on the deed to 2nd Plaint Receiver, as shown in the Letter of Pattaya City Hall No: Chor.Bor. 52306 /1184 (The correct No. is Chor. Bor. 52303 / 1184 ) , Issued date: 8 March B.E. 2547. Later on, on 30 August B.E. 2548, 2nd Plaint Receiver by Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee submitted a letter of 27 August B.E. 2547 to 1st Plaint Receiver stated that 2nd Plaint Receiver had been the owner of the Land Title Deed No: 104646 and 1147, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, wished to construct a condominium building, therefore it requested 1st Plaint Receiver to fix the distance of 100 meters from MSL +0.00 Meter on the copy of aforementioned Land Title Deed as had been attached by 2nd Plaint Receiver, but because the Land Title Deed No: 1149 which 2nd Plaint Receiver used to request 1st Plaint Receiver for the fixing of 100 meters MSL +0.00 Meter and 1st Plaint Receiver managed it already , but the Land Title Deed No: 1149 which 1st Plaint Receiver received at this time had different shape and size from the first received, so 2nd Plaint Receiver was questioned and the gave explanation which was, 2nd Plaint Receiver purchased another land at the end of the Title Deed No: 27 and then combined them to be one piece with the Title Deed No. 1149, by requesting for 2 new pieces of land which were Plot 1- Title Deed No: 104646, Book: 1047, Page: 46, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, Land size: 9 Rai – 3 Ngaan- 93 Square Wah (the correct size is 9 Rai – 3 Ngaan- 93.60 Square Wah) and Plot 2- Title Deed No: 1149, Book: 12, Page: 49
(remain the same Title Deed number), Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, Land size: 2 Rai – 3 Ngaan- 68 Square Wah. Therefore 1st Plaint

Page 7/
Receiver assigned Mr. Chawalit Jariyayanyong to fix the distance of 100 meters from MSL +0.00 Meter on the Land Title Deed No: 104646 and send the result of survey together with the aforementioned copy of Land Title Deed which already fixed a 100 meter distance on the deed to 2nd Plaint Receiver, as shown in the Letter of Pattaya City Hall No: Chor.Bor. 52303 / 5547 (The correct No. is Chor. Bor. 52303 / 5548 ) , Issued date: 9 September B.E. 2547. Later, on 27 December B.E. 2548, 2nd Plaint Receiver applied for a Construction License as shown in the Constructing / Modification or Demolition Application dated on: 26 December B.E. 2548, applied to construct a building type: Koh. Soh. Loh., consisting of 27 floors with the roof terrace, for residential purpose on 3 (three) Land Title Deeds which were Plot 1 – Deed No: 104646, Land size: 9 Rai – 3 Ngaan- 93 Square Wah (the correct size is 9 Rai – 3 Ngaan- 93.60 Square Wah), Plot 2 was the Title Deed No: 123238, Land size: 2 Ngaan- 63 Square Wah ( the correct sixe is 2 Ngaan- 67.50 Square Wah) and Plot 3 was the Deed No: 1149, Land size: 1 Rai- 1 Ngaan- 86 Square Wah (3rd Plot was stipulated to be “ the Servitude ” land for walk ways, drive ways and all types of utility of the Land Title Deed No: 104646 and 123238). 2nd Plaint Receiver informed 1st Plaint Receiver that due to the mistake made by the Land Officials which issuing some wrong information on the land title deed, by the Deed No: 104646 which 2nd Plaint Receiver requested 1st Plaint Receiver to fix the distance of 100 meters from MSL on the Land Title Deed however, the correct number of deed must have been No: 104606 and to confirm the accuracy, 1st Plaint Receiver therefore issued a Fact Requirement Letter to the Chonburi Provincial Land Office-Banglamung Branch. Later on, the confirmation about correct number was received with the clarification that the correct number was 104606. To issue a Construction License to 2nd Plaint Receiver however, the officials of 1st Plaint Receiver had considered all steps of consideration carefully. Step 1: Mr. Pornsak Piyakamol, Chief of the Application Section inspected all documents attached with an application. Step 2: The Regional Inspector inspected the land which was applied for construction. After The Regional Inspector visited the land, it appeared that the locations of all 3 (three) land Title Deeds which were No: 104606, 123238 and 1149 had their sides attached to the sea, therefore they must pass an inspection to find the distance of 100 meter from the Mean Sea Level (MSL + 0.00 Meter) which the land title deeds those were put by 2nd Plaint Receiver to apply for a Construction License however had already been passed the

Page 8/
stop of requesting 1st Plaint Receiver to fix the distance of 100 meters from MSL (MSL + 0.00 Meter). Step 3: The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning inspected the accuracy of land operation to be in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations of using the combination Structural Plan of Pattaya City B. E. 2546 which the result showed the correction of operation of land to the Ministerial Regulations. There were Blocked-lines in the area as stipulated in the Ministerial Regulations- Flow Chart of transportation ways and submitted for opinions on issuing the Construction License. As for Environmental Impact Inspection, the building must also be approved by the Environmental Impact Committee by the Declaration of the Ministry of Science & Technology and Environment, Title: Types and Sizes of Projects or Operations of Government Sections, State Enterprises or Private

Organizations needed to produce Environment Impact Report- Edition 1 (B. E. 2535), Edition 3 (B. E. 2539). During that period, 2nd Plaint Receiver submitted the Environment Impact Report of View Thalay Beach Condominium (Project 7) which was created by S. P. S. Consulting Service Co., Ltd. to the Office of National Planning and Natural Source and Environment. Step 4: The Architect inspected all involved Provisions, Ministerial Regulations and Acts which were the Ministerial Regulations promulgated to be in accordance with the Architectural involved Construction Control Act, the Provisions and Declarations of Pattaya City and the Regulations of the Disables Recovering Committee, governing Standard of Equipments or Accessories for the Disables B. E. 2544 which was correct by the aforementioned law as well, and submitted for opinions on issuing the Construction License by ordering this period of time to wait for the Resolution from the Committee to approve both the Environmental Impact Report by the Office of Natural Source and Environment and the Procedures submitted in the Report which stipulated to be the Conditions for permitting a Construction License. Step 5: The Architect inspected building’s structural strength and safety to be in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B. E. 2522 with the areas involving the Civil Engineering and other fields of Engineering and by the Provisions and Declarations of Pattaya City, the result showed accuracy for all

Page 9/
requirements. Step 6 after passing Step 5: Then the application was submitted to the Director of Construction Control Section, Director of Civil Engineer and City Planning, Director of Engineer Station and the Pattaya City Mayor in capacity of the Pattaya Officials for Approvals and the application was approved to be constructed respectively. Because the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is a large building, therefore the consideration to approve the Construction License to 2nd Plaint Receiver, 1st Paint Receiver must have received the approval of the Environmental Impact Report inspected by the Environmental Impact Inspection Committee, specially inspected the Environmental Impact to Residential Projects following the Announcement of Ministry of Science & Technology and Environment, Title: Types and Sizes of Projects or Operations of Government Sections, State Enterprises or Private Organizations needed to produce Environment Impact Report, Issue date: 24 August B. E. 2535. This section has cooperated with 1st Plaint Receiver at all times during consideration of the Committee. Later on, On 24 November 2549, 1st Plaint Receiver received a letter from the Office of National Planning and Natural Source and Environment, No: Tor. Sor.1009 / 9853, Issued date: 20 November B. E. 2549 informed the Resolution of the Environmental Impact Inspection Committee, specially inspected the Environmental Impact of Residential Projects which approved the Environmental Impact Report of View Thalay Condominium (Project 7) of 2nd Plaint Receiver, therefore 1st Plaint Receiver then issued the Construction / Modification or Demolition License No: 162 / 2550, issued on: 28 November 2549 to 2nd Plaint Receiver. Later on, the Office of Planning, Natural Source and Environment had issued the Most Urgent Letter No: No: Tor. Sor.1005 / 2308, Issued date: 8 March B.E. 2550 informed that, some parts of the land of View Thalay Condominium ( Project 7 ) of 2nd Plaint Receiver are under the force of

Clause 4 of the Announcement of Ministry of Natural Source and Environmental, Title: Fixing Areas and Environmental Preserve Procedures in the Region of Pattaya City, Chonburi Province B. E. 2546 which from the aforementioned stipulation, View Thalay Condominium ( Project 7 ) therefore requested the fixing of 20 meters from the Sea shore Line of the aforementioned project which 1st Plaint Receiver ….

Page 10/
answered that the fixing of 20 meters had already been surveyed and marked on the Master Plan of the View Thalay Beach Condominium by the Coast Line (at High Tide) was 39 meters away from the land. Before the aforesaid submission of application of 2nd Plaint Receiver however, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, together with another co-owners of Jomthien Complex Condotel had sent a Complaint to 1st Plaint Receiver and 1st Plaint Receiver therefore assigned the involved Officials to inspect the Complaint then issued an answer of the complaint by the Letter of Pattaya City Hall No: Chor. Bor.: 52303 / 7835, issued date: 22 December B. E. 2548. After issuing the Construction License to 2nd Plaint Receiver, the Office of Planning, Natural Source and Environment had still followed up on inspection the operation result of 2nd Plaint Receiver and continue following up in order for 2nd Plaint Receiver to be strict with the Environmental Impact Protection Procedures which stated in the Environmental Impact Report, by the Letter issued: the Most Urgent No: 1009 / 1779 from the Office of Planning, Natural Source and Environment, issued date: 22 February B. E. 2550 informed that there were still some lacks of procedures and qualities such as Sheet Piling on the foundation in order to reduce impact and prevent landslide and the time for construction which were before 08.00 hrs and after 17.00 hrs, therefore the request was sent to 1st Plaint Receiver to take control for the project to follow the Environmental Impact Prevention Procedures which stated in the Environmental Impact Report including considering within Authority and Power to solve the problem showed in the complaint, following the Area Inspection Record in order to prevent and solve the impact from the Project in order which 1st Plaint Receiver therefore assigned the Regional Inspector to inspect following the Record No: Chor. Bor. 52303 / 57 ( the correct No. is: Chor. Bor. 52303 / 47), issued date: 27 February B. E. 2550 and found the Violation to Phrase 1 of Article 46 which the constructed building caused disturbance and impact to Environmental Quality Preserve, therefore it was appropriate to issue an order to

Page 11/
change procedures ( Kor. 23 ). During the inspection, the Piling was found to be done for 50% already. 1st Plaint Receiver therefore issued an order for 2nd Plaint Receiver to modify the building to be in accordance with Phrase 1 of Article 46 ( Form Kor. 23), No: 197/2550, issued date: 6 March 2550 together with the Attached list with the order form - form: Kor. 23, No: 197/ 2550. In the presence time, it had already passed the step of Piling, therefore there is no longer the problem of vibration impact. As for the problem with working after 17.00 hrs, it was changed already also.

As shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act B. E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung,

Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2499, the Construction Control Line along the Sea Side is fixed but not fixing the Sea Shore at MSL. But as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521, the Construction Control Line along the Sea Side is fixed by fixing the Sea Shore at MSL as well and fixed the Construction Control Line, along the Sea Shore to be the Line measured from the Sea Shore at MSL outward into the sea for 100 meters. Therefore by Clause 2 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, it fixes the distance within the distance of 200

meters measuring from the Construction Control Line As shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521, along the sea side to be the prohibited area for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces. Therefore the measurement was started from the aforementioned Construction Control Line, along the sea side toward the Shore for 200 meters which actually is the measurement from the Coast Line at MSL ( MSL +0.00 Meter) toward the Shore for another 100 meters. 1st Plaint Receiver by Mr. Chawalit Jariyayanyong, Traffic Inspector had inspected for the distance of a 100 meter from the Sea Shore Line at MSL (MSL +0.00 Meter) to fix the prohibited area for Buildings taller than 14

Page 12/
meters from road surfaces to be in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 on the Title deed of 2nd Plaint Receiver which was submitted for a Construction License completely, legally and correctly by the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations by 2nd Plaint Receiver, by fixing the Coast Line at MSL +0.00 first by fixing MSL +5.00 meter to be the Statring value around the Sea Shore in front of the project of 2nd Plaint Receiver which 1st Plaint Receiver recorded the value level from Bench Marks at Pattaya Weather Report Station, Department of Thai Meteorological, Thappraya Mountain. The aforementioned Bench Mark ( B.M.) was supplied by the Department of Thai Hydrographic, Royal Thai Navy. The standard value has been referred by the area of Koh Lak( Lak Island), Prachuabkirikhan Province which considered to be the starting value for Thailand, then step back into the sea until reaching the level of MSL +0.00 meter at the point of MSL +0.00 meter, all along the Shore line. It is counted to be the Coast Line at MSL +0.00 meter, then measure outward into the sea for 100 meters then it will be the Starting Point of Construction Control Line, which is the Starting Point of the Measurement of 200 meters, which is the measurement from the Shore Line at MSL +0.00 toward the Shore for 100 meters in order to fix the Prohibited area for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces (WHAT?)
as stipulated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479. Apart from that, On 24 April B.E. 2550, 1st

Plaint Receiver requested the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning- Chonburi Province to prove the Mean Sea Level around the area in front of the project of 2nd Plaint Receiver. The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning-Chonburi Province therefore assigned Mr. Prabpipohb Jampasoem, Position: Civil Engineer Level 5 to proceed the Survey Walk Procedure to find the Mean Sea Level by using the Bench Mark (BM), starting at Pattaya Weather Report Station, Department of Thai Meteorological, Thappraya Mountain which was the same point used by 1st Plaint Receiver to be the Starting Point for measurement. The Survey to find the level values had been continued until reaching the Project front on the Sea Side of the Title Deed No: 104646 of 2nd Plaint Receiver. Later on, the Survey Report Mean Sea Level was issued on 25 April 2550, No: Chor. Bor.: 0020/ 394 clarified that, when comparing between the distance of 100 meters

Page 13/
from MSL +0.00 which fixed by 1st Plaint Receiver before (Green color) and the new distance of 100 meters from MSL +0.00 which fixed by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning- Chonburi Province (Light Blue color), the difference was only slightly. The slightly difference could happen because of the difference of Survey days. When the measurement was done on different days and times, the Shore Line’s Physical Conditions must have had been different by seasons changed also. Construction Location of 2nd Plaint Receiver and the Building of the 10 Plaintiffs are in the Commercial Type of Land. The use of lands are for commercial operation and residential purposes as stipulated in the Ministerial Regulations promulgated to enforce the Pattaya City Combination Plan, Chonburi Province B.E. 2546. Especially the area around Dongtan Beach, in front of the Sea side land of 2nd Plaint Receiver until reaching the beginning of Jomtien Beach, it is a famous Tourist attraction of Pattaya City and fast growing, land prices are very high, therefore the constructions will be higher buildings for the most operation benefit. There are many tall buildings in front of, along the sea side and by the sides of Building of the 10 Litigants. Choosing to buy units in Jomthien Complex Condotel which does not have the front of building close to the sea but by Thappraya road instead however, they should have expected a large building which can block wind directions, sunlight and sceneries of sea view to be built.

As for the Land Title Deed No: 1149 which owned by Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee, on 30 November B.E. 2548, Mr. P. Kriangchai registered the aforementioned land to be the “Servitude” land for walk way, drive way and all types of utilities for the Land Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238, and before submitting an Application for construction on 26 December B.E. 2548 however, Mr. P. Kriangchai had already made a written consent to allow a construction on the Land Title Deed No: 1149 to 2nd Plaint Receiver. Also the empty areas around the building which consist of roads, parking spaces and empty areas without any …..

Page 14/
covering items with the width more than 6 (six) meters which are big enough for fire trucks to run through, including building’s walls and areas which are set back more

than 6 (six) meters from other person’s lands and public roads. Therefore the building is certainly in accordance with Clause 3 and 4 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 33 (B.E. 2535) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 which was amended by Clause 6 and 7 of the Ministerial Regulations –Issue 50 (B.E. 2540) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2522.

2nd Plaint Receiver testified and made an Additional Testimony stated that, 2nd Plaint Receiver earned the contrary construction License No: 162/ 2550, issued date: 28 November B’E’ 2549 with accuracy, by before applying for that contrary License, 2nd Plaint Receiver requested 1st Plaint Receiver to measure for the distance of 100 meters from the Mean Sea Level to see how much and how it might come in the land which requested for the measurement. The Measurement Result showed 49 meters passing a Public area, 51 meters going deep in the land on the North side , 49.50 meters passing a Public area, 50.50 meters going deep in the land on the South side as shown in the Letter of Pattaya City Hall No: Cor. Bor. 52303 / 5548, issued date: 9 September B.E. 2548 which was used by 2nd Plaint Receiver to be the Prior Evidence in making a Construction Master Plan to be correct by all stipulations and standards and to be an evidence in applying for another applications from another government sections. The Building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is a permanent built building, type of building: Koh. Soh. Loh.27 Floors with Roof terraces, No. of buildings: 1, Purpose: Residential, consists of 912 units and 24 shops to sell to public. Spaces inside Building: 101,469 Square meters, Parking spaces: 11,708 Square Meters, Swimming Pool area: 1,134 Square Meters and Pipes: 1,261 Square Meters ( the right unit is meters ). Total: 115,572 Square Meters. Minimum price estimated for construction (average) is 10,000 Baht per Square Meter. Construction value for the whole project is 1,155,720,000 Baht. When adding these prices with the land price and Management fee which will be added on for the whole project however, the Investment will be no less than Two Billion Baht, therefore the application for construction must have passed approvals from many government sections and attached proper documents must be shown to

Page 15/
be evidences in every step of application. Apart from that, 1st Plaint Receiver also issued a letter No: Chor. Bor. 52303 / 3088, Issued date: 20 April B.E. 2550 requested the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning- Chonburi Province to proceed the aforementioned procedure which the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning- Chonburi Province had completed the inspection, then issuing an Inspection Report back to 1st Plaint Receiver which showed that 1st Plaint Receiver had proceeded all procedures correctly. The Measurement Result of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning- Chonburi Province showed the distance of 51 meters passing a Public area, 49 meters going deep in the land on the North side, 49.75 meters passing a Public area, 50.25 meters going deep in the land on the South side, therefore the line of 100 meters measured from the Shore line at MSL measured by 1st Plaint Receiver and by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning- Chonburi Province are very close to each other. Since both measurements were done by Government Sections, therefore the results must be

correct without any doubt. 2nd Plaint Receiver in capacity of the owner of the land always has the right to operate its land for benefit gaining under provisions of laws. When the 10 Litigants claimed that, if the construction is allowed to be constructed until it is completed as permitted by the Contrary License, it will change wind directions which originally blew through to the Building of the 10 Litigants. And it also block sceneries which used to be able to see the beach and sea until it impacts physical and mental condition of the 10 Plaintiffs and the other residents however, all these claims are not applied by laws. Jomthien Complex Condotel is located on the land which separated by another land on the sea side, therefore all must acknowledge the possibility of another new constructions later, especially the famous Tourist attraction like Pattaya City which fast growth, land prices are very high and there are very little spaces which left empty , therefore there would be tall buildings being constructed in order to gain the most benefit. (NOTE: see the "sales brochure" below) On 31 October B.E. 2548, Mr. Anatthachat Ratthakhul, Juristic Person Manager of Jomthien Complex Condotel sent a letter of complaint to 1st Plaint Receiver and 1st Plaint Receiver therefore referred the aforementioned letter to the Office of Planning & Natural

Page 16/
Source and Environment for an inspection which the aforesaid section issued a letter of answer, dated on 19 December B.E. 2548 to the Juristic Person Manager of Jomthien Complex Condotel stated that View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium Project 7 had not yet submitted any Environmental Impact Report for the consideration. Later, on 17 April B.E. 2549, Mr. Tawil Intaraksa, Juristic Person Manager of Jomthien Complex Condotel sent a letter to the Secretary of the Office of Planning & Natural Source and Environment stated that there was a letter from the Office of Planning & Natural Source and Environment No: Tor. Sor. 1009 / 3224, issued dated: 11 April B.E. 2549 informed that View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium Project 7 had already submitted its Environmental Impact Report to the Office of Planning & Natural Source and Environment for an inspection to be in accordance with the National Environmental Quality Control for Promotion and Preserve of Environment Act B.E. 2535 and already submitted his opinions or suggestions toward Environmental Impact both directly and indirectly, including submission of the negotiation plan which would approach View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium Project 7. And on 19 December B.E. 2549, the Office of Planning & Natural Source and Environment issued a letter No: Tor. Sor. 1009 / 10691, informed Jomthien Complex Condotel that the Environmental Impact Report of View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium Project 7 had been approved by the Environmental Impact Inspection Committee concerning Residential Project and also informed 2nd Plaint Receiver already on 20 November B.E. 2549.

As for the Land Title Deed No: 1149 which owned by Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee which agreed for the aforementioned land to be the “Servitude” land for walk way, drive way and all types of utilities for the Land Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238. When 2nd Plaint Receiver submitted the Land Title Deed No: 1149 for the Construction License of the Disputed Building together with the deed

No: 104606 and 123238, by the legal right of Servitude by using it to be the road of project on the South side of the building which is over 6 meter wide and it also

Page 17/
makes the outer edges of building, weather they are above or under the ground located more than 6 meters away from other person’s lands or public roads and is in agreement with the law.

The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning explained its statement as had been ordered by the court stated that, it already had a discussion with Construction Control Committee and agreed that the Coast Line at MSL is the point that the Shore Line meet the MSL which can find value of MSL from Bench Mark of Department of Thai Hydrographic, Royal Thai Navy. The MSL is the fix value but the Shore Line is changed by season changing, therefore the Coast Line at the first or second mark at the MSL as shown on the transverse viewed picture which had been attached to the court would depend on time of measurement which would not be able to find if the Bench Mark had not been marked 1st or 2nd mark point at MSL on the day of measurement to find the Shore Line. As for the distance of 100 meters referred to Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations–Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 and the distance of 200 meters referred to Clause 3 of the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations which was amended by Clause 2 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 are not the same line because thereby the Shore Line referred to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 however did not fix to measure at the Mean sea Level but by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 however fixed to measure at the Mean Sea Level Only.

1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaint Receivers clarified the facts concerning the Additional Testimonies of both Plaint Receivers in the similar way which shown in the Plaint and the Additional Plaint.

The Court made an Enquiry both parties and Witnesses and received Additional Facts as follow;

Page 18/
Mr. Amnart Thiangtham, the Representative of the 10 Litigants and Mr. Preecha Techamualvaivit, the Representative of 2nd Plaint Receiver testified that they both agreed with the Submitted Report to the Court by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning.

Mr. Yattipong Intarat, Chief of the City Planning Section, Pattaya City Engineer Station, the Representative of 1st Plaint Receiver testified that he agreed with

the Submitted Report to the Court by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning and the difference from measuring to find the Construction Control Line referred to the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Control Acts BE. 2479, over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province BE 2521 can happen by the different time of measurement due to seasons changed but can not be more than 1 (one) meter. In the Process of Measurement to justify the Shore Line at MSL however, there was no Mark Pin at the front of the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver but the Technique which was used was the Technique of transferring the level from the Bench Mark on Thappraya Mountain.

Mr. Chawalit Jariyayanyong, Traffic Survey Official level 6, the representative of 1st Plaint Receiver testified that he was the official who measured the distance of 100 meter from the shore line at the MSL. The Measurement Procedure was done by using a camera to measure and refer the levels from Bench Marks on the Thappraya mountain respectively until reaching the Shore in front of the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver. Then using a measurement tape to measure from MSL +0.00 meter inward onto the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver until finding the distance of 100 meters, then marked the point and marked also on the Title deed. Mr. Chawalit Jariyayanyong measured the distance from MSL +0.00 meter to the 2 Land Mark Pins which the distance to the Left Pin was 49 meters and 49.50 meters to the Right Pin. Then measuring from the main Land Mark inward for another 51 meters. The total distance was 100 meters. Mr. Chawalit Jariyayanyong did not mark on the land but on the Title Deed. The approximated time of measurement was half a day. Mr. Chawalit Jariyayanyong usually uses this Measurement Technique when there is a request for a Construction License submitted to Pattaya City Hall.
.
Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Wor. Class Lawyer of the Department
of Construction Control and Inspection, the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning, Witness, testified that the Shore Line at MSL which always changes depending on seasons change as shown in the Chart submitted to the court by the

Page 19/
Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning however, the Witness was unable to clarify the different of the distance, but it will make the Construction Control Line as referred to The Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the Regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 unstable which can be greater or less depending on the different Positions at the Coast Line at MSL. The witness was unable to give opinions toward the measurement method of 1st Plaint Receiver whether it was correct or wrong by procedures because he was not an Engineer.

On the date of Enquiry, every party agreed to have the distance measured from the Coast Line at MSL to find 100 meters by the Central Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as the official who proceeds the procedure together with the official who responsible to the Bench Mark on Thappraya Mountain and weather what the result would be, every party would accept that result. 1st Plaint Receiver would find out the responsible department for the Bench Mark on Thappraya Mountain and then submitting its evidences to the court.

1st Plaint Receiver issued the Most Urgent letter No: Chor. Bor: 52306 / 8931, issued date: 6 September 2550 reported to the court that the Bench Mark on Thappraya Mountain belongs to the Department of Thai Meteorological.

The court ordered the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to measure the distance from the Construction Control Line by the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 until reaching the Disputed Building together with a Map providing which the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning had proceeded following the court order and reported to the court stated that the Shore Line at MSL must be started measuring at the MSL of value 0.00 meter. When measuring outward into the sea for 100 meters from the aforesaid point, it will be the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree promulgated to enforce the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province B.E. 2521, and when measuring inward

Page 20/
onto the land for 100 meters until reaching the front of the building from the aforesaid point, it will be the distance of 200 meters from the Construction Control Line to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations –Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 which was amended by Clause 2 of the Ministerial Regulations –Issue 9 (B.E. 2521 ) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 which prohibits the construction of buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces. The result showed that the Building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is located more than 100 meters from the Shore Line at MSL.

The Court started the Trial on 24 March 2552 and received the Summary of Facts Finding from the Judicial of the Case, The written statement of 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs, The written statement of 4th Plaintiff, The written statement of 2nd Plaint Receiver, Verbal Statement of the Appointed person of the Plaintiffs, Verbal Statement of 4th Plaintiff, Verbal Statement of the Appointed person of 2nd Plaint Receiver and Verbal Explanation to support the Statement of Judicial who stated the case already.

The Court had already inspected all involved documents in the Case File, Laws, Rules and Regulations.

The Facts was found that, on 27 December 2548, 2nd Plaint Receiver who has owned the land Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, had submitted for a Construction License on the aforementioned land with the Servitude land of these two lands as shown in the Application for Construction issued date: 26 December 2548 which has been the deed No: 1149, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province. Later on 1st Plaint Receiver had issued the License No: 162/ 2550, issued date: 28 November 2549 to 2nd Plaint Receiver by permitting 2nd Plaint Receiver to build a tall building or an Extra Large Building permanently, type of building: Koh. Soh. Loh., Hight: 27 Floors with Roof terraces, No. of buildings: 1, Purpose: Residential,

Page 21/
consists of 912 units and 24 shops to sell to public. Spaces inside Building: 101,469 Square meters on the aforementioned land and located next to Jomtien Beach. The 10 Plaintiffs who own condominium units and live in Jomthien Complex Condotel located next to the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver on the West side disagreed with the construction because the application was for the building taller over 14 meters from road surfaces and located within 200 meters from Construction Control Line as stipulated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) which promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 and amended by Clause 2 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) which promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479. Also the building which is located on the Land Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238 has its outer part on the South side closer than 6 meters from the land deed No: 1149 of Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee as stipulated in Clause 4 of the Ministerial Regulations –Issue 33 (B.E. 2535) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 which had been amended by Clause 7 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 50 (B.E. 2540) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 and if the construction is allowed to be constructed until it is completed as permitted by the Contrary License, it will change wind directions which originally blew through to the Building of the 10 Plaintiffs from Jomtien beach and it also block sceneries which will impact therefore 1st Plaint Receiver must not be able to issue the Construction License. Apart from that, during 2nd Plaint Receiver started on its steps of landscaping and piling, they also caused Jomthien Complex Condotel building to have splits and crack lines, also all steps of construction have been done without dust spreading prevention procedures and has caused air pollution and effected respiratory system for the 10 Plaintiffs. Later on, the Office of Planning & Natural Source and Environment had still continued following up in order for 2nd Plaint Receiver to be strict with the Environmental Impact Protection Procedures which stated in the Environmental Impact Report and

Page 22/
found there were still some lacks of procedures and qualities such as Sheet Piling on the foundation in order to reduce impact and prevent landslide and the time for construction which were before and after limited time, therefore the Office of Planning & Natural Source and Environment issued the Most Urgent letter No: Tor. Sor. 1009/ 1779 to request 1st Plaint Receiver to take control for the project of 2nd Plaint Receiver to follow the Environmental Impact Prevention Procedures which stated in the Environmental Impact Report including considering within Authority and Power to solve the problem and to prevent impacts from the aforementioned project. 1st Plaint Receiver therefore issued an Order No: 197 /2550, issued date: 6 March B.E. 2550 for 2nd Plaint Receiver to manage the building which in the presence time, it had already passed the step of Piling, therefore there is no longer the problem of vibration impact. As for the problem with the time for construction which was after 17.00 hrs, it was cleared already also. Later on, during the court Trial, on the Enquiry date, every party made an agreement for the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to measure the distance from Shore Line at MSL to fix the distance of 100 meters, and weather what the result would be, every party would accept the result. The Court therefore ordered the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to measure the distance from the Shore Line at MSL to the Disputed Building. The result showed that the Building of 2nd Plaint Receiver was located over 100 meters from the Shore Line at the Mean Sea Level.

The Case has the Point to consider that The Order of 1st Plaint Receiver which had issued the Construction License for 2nd Plaint Receiver to construct its building as permitted by the Construction License No: 162 / 2550, Dated on: 28 November 2549 was the Legal or Illegal Order.

Page 23/
When the facts shown that on 27 December B.E. 2548, 2nd Plaint Receiver applied for a construction license to construct a Permanent Building Type: Koh. Soh. Loh., consisting of 27 floors with the roof terrace, 912 units with 24 shops, Numbers of Building: One, for living purpose which was View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium (Project 7) which was the extraordinary large building and it was close to Jomtien beach, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province. The permission to construct the aforementioned building, 1st Plaint Receiver must have followed the Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 including that the construction must have followed the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (2519) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which was amended by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 and the Ministerial Regulations Issue 33 (2535) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522 which was amended by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 50 (2540) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522. So the construction of Disputed Building could not be built within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Construction Control Boundary, as shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to enforce the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of ………..

Page 24/
Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521 and the Boundary of Disputed Building must be away from the other person’s land or public road for no less than 6 (six ) meters. The fact was found later that 1st Plaint Receiver issued the construction license No.: 162 / 2550, Issued date: 28 November 2549 which was not in agreement with the 10 Plaintiffs by seeing that it was the permission of building taller than 14 meters within the distance of 200 meters by measuring from the Construction Control Boundary, as shown on the aforementioned Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, Along the Sea side and the building’s part on the South side which is the outer edge of building, located away from the Land Title Deed No: 1149 of Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee including if the building is still continue constructing until it is completed, it will certainly block and change wind directions which always blow through the building of 10 Plaintiffs and also it will block Sea views of Jomtien Beach which will impact physical and mental conditions of 10 Plaintiffs and also the other residents who live in Jomthien Complex Condotel. Apart from that, 4th Plaintiffs submitted a Statement dated 24 March 2009 on 1st Trial, stated that the two arrows pointing at each other as shown in on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to enforce the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521 only stated the distance of 100 meters from the arrow on the left to the arrow on the right which define meanings of what arrows pointing to. If there is another meaning that the arrow needs to define then must see from the law or another explanation which attached on some part of the map. The statement stated by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the measurement must be started measuring for 100 meters outward into the sea however, there has been no information shown about this technique of measurement on the map and the statement of the aforementioned Regulations whatsoever therefore 1st Plaint Receiver must not have been able to issue a construction license to 2nd Plaint Receiver, so there has been a point to take up for consideration that, to fix the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Construction Control Boundary, as shown on the aforementioned Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, Along the Sea side to be

Page 25/
Prohibited Areas for Buildings taller than 14 meters as referred to the aforementioned Regulations. By the aforementioned Regulations, whether how it stated its Standard and Measurement Method and the outer edge of the Disputed building has / or does not have its Boundary away from the other person’s land or public road for no less than 6 (six ) meters however, it was found after considering the aforementioned Regulations, Witness’ and the Disputed party’s Testimony from court’s Enquiry together with the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to enforce the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521 that as referred by the aforementioned Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, it fixes the symbol of CCL (Construction Control Line) away from the Coast Line at MSL for 100 meters which by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479, it fixes to measure from the CCL, therefore the measurement to find the distance from the CCL must start from the Coast Line at MSL first to find the CCL by measuring from the Coast Line at

MSL Outward into the sea for 100 meters to be the CCL as shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree as mentioned. Then measuring from the CCL Inward onto the land for 200 meters, it will be the area within 200 meters measuring from the CCL which is the Prohibited Area for Buildings taller than 14 meters as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which was amended by Clause 2 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which is the measurement from the Coast Line at MSL Inward onto the land for 100 meters which the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning proceeded the measurement to fine the distance from Coast Line at MSL up to the Disputed building as ordered by the court since 15th until 17th November 2550, by the procedure was witnessed by both Parties and the Officials from the Department of Thai Meteorological and the

Page 26/
Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning started measuring from the Bench Mark ( B.M.) at Or.Dtor. MSL Chor.Bor. 0029 which valued 48.989 meters from the MSL in the area of the Department of Thai Meteorological ( Pattaya ) on Thappraya Mountain by using a specific camera with the transference method to transfer levels down along the road until reaching Jomtien Beach and then carry on by footpaths until reaching the location of construction project of 2nd Plaint Receiver for the distance about 3.50 kilometers and using the camera to see from the front of aforementioned project to go back along the same way until reaching B.M. On Thappraya Mountain to inspect for correction. Each spot which passed the measurement would be marked by the Temporary B.M.( T.B.M.) for the whole distance. And the area of Jomtien Beach in front of the Constructed project of 2nd Plaint Receiver however, there were 2 T.B. Marks done which were MSL at 0.00 meter and at 1.4477 meters and measured the distance from both marks until reaching the front of Disputed building together with marking the Evidence Marks there. The result of measurement as shown on the Chart submitted to court showed the distance of 100 meters from Coast Line at MSL on the North side which passed Public areas for 50.15 meters and deep onto the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver for 49.85 meters. As for the distance on South side passed Public areas was 49.60 meters and deep onto the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver for 50.40 meters which the Disputed building was located further than 100 meters from the Coast Line at MSL. From the aforementioned Standard and Procedure of Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning however, it showed that the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning proceeded its measurement method correctly and when it showed that the Disputed building of 2nd Plaint Receiver located further than 100 meters from the Coast Line at MSL, therefore the Disputed building is certainly not located within the area of 200 meters measuring from the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree as mentioned, by Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) promulgated to be in accordance with Clause 3 of the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 which was amended by Clause 2 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479. As for the claim of 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs which claimed that the building part on

South side which is the outer edge of building located less than 6 (six) meters from the boundary of Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee’s land however, the Court considers that

Page 27/
Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee who is the owner of the Land Title deed No: 1149 has registered with the Land Officials on 30 November 2548 for the aforementioned land to become a Servitude land for Walkways, Driveways, and all types of Utilities for the Land Title deed No: 104606 and No:123238 and also gave a written letter to allow 2nd Plaint Receiver constructs its building on the aforementioned land on 26 December 2548. Therefore 2nd Plaint Receiver has received the right to the Servitude status of the land No: 1149 by Juristic Act which enforcing Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee and the outsiders or Transferees of the ownership of the Land No: 1149 to be unable to operate the aforementioned land in the way that is in contrary with the uses of Walkways, Driveways, and all types of Utilities for the Land Title deed No: 104606 and No:123238 by the Phrase 1 of Article 1299 and Article 1387 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Later on, when 2nd Plaint Receiver applied for a Construction License of the Disputed Building by attaching the deed No: 1149 with No. 104606 and No:123238 for application by using it to be the land for the Project road which is 6 meters wide which shown in the Plan of Title deed connection and Project Plan that the Disputed Building is located on the land No: 104606 and No:123238 with the outer edge on the South Side that is only 1(one) meter away from the deed No: 1149. But when calculating together with the deed No: 1149 which is the Servitude land for Land Title deed No: 104606 and No:123238 and using it to be Project road which is 6 meters wide, which all together is 7 meters, then the Disputed Building however, has the outer edges of its building both above or under the ground away from the other person’s land or Public roads for no less than 6(six) meters. It is in agreement with Clause 4 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 33 (2535) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522 which was amended by Clause 7 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 50 (2540) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2522. Apart from that, the areas in Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province which is the land

that the Disputed building is constructed, is the Red Zone Area fro Commercial. The land is set to be mainly used for Commercial, Residential, Government Official, Utility Purposes as referred to Clause 7 ( 3 ) together with Clause 10 of Ministerial

Page 28/
Regulations enforcing the Pattaya City Combination Plan, Chonburi Province B.E. 2546. The aforementioned area is therefore able to be permitted to constructed the Disputed building for Residential purpose. The aforementioned claim of 10 Plaintiffs is not strong enough, therefore the Permission issued by 1st Plaint Receiver which permitted 2nd Plaint Receiver to build its Disputed building by the license No: 162/ 2550, Dated: 28 November 2549 was a legal permission.

The case is dismissed.

- Affixing Official Stamp –

Mr. Prasitsak Meelarp - Signed - Judicial of the Case
Deputy Chief Judge of the Court of First Instance
Mrs. Saisuda Saittabutra - Signed -
Chief Judge of the Court of First Instance
Mr. Sorasak Mahaisiriyodom - Signed -
Judicial of the Court of First Instance.
Stated by Judicial: Mr. Sujin Jutatipatai.