Does the Rayong court judge looks wrong because of his misunderstanding in reading Issue 9? The court requests a survey to measure and report were the VT7 building location from MSL using a map. The survey report failed to follow the court order and it rewrote the meaning of Issue 8 and 9-regulation wording. Their no were one can find the wording you measure into the sea 100 meters form MSL.
Read the below court statement and make your own decision if the Rayong Judge acted correctly? Also keep in mind while reading:
1) The judge ignores all of our facts brought to the court in writing his judgment decision
a) such as the drafting minutes in writing Issue8 regulations,
b) our map expert and all Thailand’s other regulation which require a 200 meter measurement from CCL at the seashore or coastline onto the land.
c) the testimony and e-mail concerning our first lawyer miss-conduct in court which needed to be investigated for corruption.
2) The judge ignores the question of “Miss-conduct of Government Officials” referred to in Phrase 1 of Section 9 of the Administrative Court Setting Procedure..
3) The judge relies on a so-called expert witness (“if”) to determine the question of law.

Now, remember Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) said while you read this decision; “No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line (see the map)……….. at the seashore”. Now look at the map that gives the following facts:
1) “at the seashore”or coastline is MSL the "construction control line" where all measuring are started.
2) The “physical area / the Thai word “kaid” is shown on the map. That is the area where Issue 9 is applied.

The outcome of this court case will have effects on foreign investment in Thailand. If you can’t rely on clear government regulation to be enforce by a new court system, which is establish to control corruption, how can you trust investing in Thailand?

We are encouraged to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court because of the fair and correct 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.

Translation below:


Statement ( Dtoh. 15)


GARUDA

Number of Black Case: 54 / 2550


Rayong Provincial Administrative Court

24 March 2009


Plaitiffs Mr. T....., 1st
Mr. 2nd
Mr. 3rd
Mr. 4th
Mr. 5th
Mr. 6th
7th
8th
9th
Mr. 10th

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

Submit to: The First Quorum of Judicial of Rayong Provincial Administrative Court


Page 2/

The Judicial who states the case ( Mr. Sujin Juthathipatai ) had already
made consideration of the whole file of this case together with the Record made by the Judicial who is in charge of this case, therefore I wish to submit this statement to the Quorum for consideration of a Decision or an Order as follow;

1) In this case, The 10 Plaintiffs entered an Additional Plaint and a
Request with the Matter summarized 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 Surrounding plan and Master plan and Attachments with the Plans all had to be considered with the application for Construction 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 ( Kaid) (NO! DEAR JUDGE, YOU MEASURE FROM THE "CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE" FOUND AT MSL ON THE MAP LOCATED AT THE SEA SIDE OR COAST LINE!.

Page 3/
- CCB, 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, 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 ( B.E. 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 (B.E. 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 located no less than 6 (six) meters from the other person’s land / or public road, however, not including Foundation part of the building. The building which was granted the Construction License to be constructed as mentioned has been constructed 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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


Page 4/
suffering has never been minimized, so the 10 Plaintiffs then had to institute the prosecution to the court of law.

The Request had been made for the Court to give a Judicial Decision to cancel the Construction 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 remedied in the future, if the building is still being allowed to continue with its construction.

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 not 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 and 8th up to 10th Plaintiffs 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.

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.


6th and 7th Plaintiffs submitted the letters 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 Plaintiffs for the withdrawal respectively.

Page 5/
2) The Judicial who states the case had already made consideration of the Plaint submitted by the 10 Plaintiffs dated on 12 March 2550 and all other documents in the file also.

3) The Judicial who states the case had already made consideration of The Administrative Court Setting Act and the Enquiry Method for Administrative Case B.E. 2542 including involved Laws and Rules also.

4) In this case, after studying all the Plaints, Statements and other Documents in the file, the Judicial who states the case found the facts that, on 27 December B.E. 2548, 2nd Plaint Receiver which owns the Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, submitted an Application for construction its building on the aforementioned land together with the land Title deed No: 1149, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province of Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee and fixed it to be the “ Servitude land ” for both aforementioned lands as shown in the Request for Construction License dated on 26 December 2548. Later on, 1st Plaint receiver issued a Construction License No.: 162 / 2550, Issued date: 28 November 2549 for 2nd Plaint receiver to construct a Permanent 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 on the aforementioned lands with the edge located next to Jomtien Beach. The 10 Plaintiffs who owns condominium units in JCC, located next to the construction on the West side however were not in agreement with the construction on 2nd Plaint receiver because it was a request to build a building taller than 14 meters from road surface and it is located within the distance of 200 meters from the Construction Control Boundary ( CCB ) as stipulated 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, 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 ( Kaid), 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


Page 6/
Province, B.E. 2522, which had been amended and added by Clause 7 of the Ministry Regulations Issue 50 (B.E. 2540) promulgated to be in accordance with the Building Control Acts B.E. 2522. 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 Plaintiffs and also the other residents who live in Jomthien Complex Condotel. Therefore 1st Plaint Receiver could not permit the Construction License. Apart from this, while 2nd Plaint Receiver has started on Landscaping and Pilling, it 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. Then later on, the Office of Natural Source and Environment Planning had followed up to inspection if the management had followed the Environmental Prevention Procedures which were listed in the Environmental Impact report of the project of 2nd Plaint Receiver and the results were found that there have been some procedures which have been done without proper standard and quality such as Sheet Piling for foundation area in order to reduce Vibration Impact and landslide and also working before and after work time limit. The Office of Natural Source and Environment Planning therefore had issued the MOST URGENT letter No: Tor. Sor.1009 / 9853, requested 1st Plaint Receiver which is Pattaya City Hall to take control for the construction of 2nd Plaint Receiver to follow the Environmental Prevention Procedures including to solve all problem within its power to prevent the Impact from the aforementioned construction. Therefore 1st Plaint Receiver then issued the Order No: 197/2550, issued date: 6 March 2550 for 2nd Plaint Receiver to solve problems from construction 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 working after 17.00 hrs, it was changed already also. Later on, during Court Inquiry, all parties agreed for the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning ( DCECP ) to proceed the Measurement of the distance from the Coast line at Mean Sea Level ( MSL ) to find the distance of 100 meters and whatever the result would be, all parties would accept that result. Therefore the Court then order the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to make a Measurement of the distance from the Coast line at Mean Sea


Page 7/
Level (MSL) to the Disputed building which gave the result showed that the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver was located outside 100 meter distance from the Coast line at MSL.


5) The Judicial who states the case sees that there are points needed to be considered with reasons for consideration in all points as follow;

1. Point concerning Court Authority and Condition for entering the Suit.
After consideration, it shows that this case is the contentious case concerning Miss-conduct of Government Officials, referred to Phrase 1 of Section 9 of the Administrative Court Setting Procedure and Enquiry Procedure for Administrative Cases B.E. 2542 and this case is under the authority of Rayong Provincial Administrative Court referred to Section 10, Phrase 1 of Section 47 and Section 94 (10) of the same Act and the case has been proceeded following requested con- ditions of entering an action.

2. Point of the Tenor of the case
This case has to be considered in the point about the Order of 1st Plaint
Receiver which granted 2nd Plaint Receiver to construct its Disputed building as permitted by the Construction License No: 162 / 2550, Issued date: 28 May 2549 that if it is legal or illegal.

After consideration, it shows that 1st Plaint Receiver had issued a con-
struction license to build a building by the sea in Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi to 2nd Plaint Receiver on 28 May 2549. The construction must proceed following the Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 and involved Ministerial Regulations which Section 21 of the Construction Control Act


B.E. 2522 stipulated that anyone who wishes to construct, modify or move any building, such person must receive a permission from local officials or inform local officials and proceed following Section 39-Bis and 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 fixes the area within 200 meters, by measuring from the Construction Control Boundary ( Kaid), 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 Nong –

Page 8/
prue 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……. (8). The buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces as listed in the aforementioned Regulations shows that, the construction of buildings within the area of 200 meters measuring from CCB as shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stipulated 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, must not be taller than 14 meters. When the fact is found that 2nd Plaint Receiver applied for a construction license on 27 December 2548, to construct its permanent building, Type of building: Koh. Soh. Loh., consisting of 27 floors with the roof terrace, 912 units with 24 shops, Number of building: 1. This building has been constructed on 3 Plots of land which are Title Deed No: 104606, and No: 123238, total size: 10 Rai- 2 Ngaan- 56 Square Wah and Title Deed No: 1149 which has been listed to be the Servitude land for the above 2 plots, for living purpose under the name: View Thalay Jomtien Beach Condominium( Project 7). The request for license as mentioned was the request to construct an Extra Large building or an Extra Tall building close to Jomtien Beach, Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, therefore the permission of License must be done in agreement with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2522 and 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. It appeared that 1st Plaint Receiver had issued a construction license for 2nd Plaint Receiver to construct its 27 floor Koh. Sor. Lor. type of building by 1st Plaint Receiver claimed that, to consider issuing the aforementioned license, the Officials of 1st Plaint Receiver had completed 6 steps of inspection very carefully. As for 2nd step however, it has been passed the survey to find the distance of 100 meters from the Coast line at MSL already.

Then there still has been one issue for consideration which is, which Standard that had been used in fixing the distance of 200 meters, measuring from CCB as shown in the Annexed Map of Royal Decree stipulated to…


Page 9/
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 Side to be the prohibited area for Buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces. It is found that, after consider the Annexed Map of Royal Decree stipulated to enforce the Construction Control Acts B.E. 2479 over the regions of Banglamung…….., Chonburi Province, B.E. 2499 and 2521 however, it shows the Construction Control Boundary Line ( CCBL) as shown in both Annexed Attachments of Royal Decree, that the North, South and East sides are in similar shape , but the West side which is the side that attached to the sea however, it shows that the CCBL as shown in both Annexed Maps of Royal Decree B.E. 2499has a boundary line lay all the way along the Coast line attached to the sea, but from the Annexed Maps of Royal Decree B.E. 2521 which marks the Scale 1: 50,000, it shows the CCBL on the sea side is located outside the shore by located outward in the sea all along the West line. Apart from that, it also shows the Arrow symbol from the sea toward the CCBL along the shore and from the Coast line by the sea toward the land on the inside for both North and South sides of the land with the definition written “ the Coast Line at MSL ”. The CCBL of the Royal Decree B.E. 2521 therefore is different from the CCBL of the Royal Decree B.E. 2499 and is in agreement with the Explanation of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning ( DCECP ) which explained that the distance of 100 meters as stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B. E. 2519) and the distance of 200 meters which stated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance are not the same line because the Coast line of Issue 8 is not fixed to measure at the MSL but by Issue 9 is fixed to measure at the MSL only ( Documents No: 65 / 1 – 65 / 2 ) and from Witness’ Testimony including the opposite party’s Testimony on inquiry can summarize that the measurement to find the distance from the CCB must be measured from the MSL by measuring outward into the sea for 100 meters. And when measure from the Coast Line at MSL inward onto the land for 100 meters, then it will be the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the CCB which prohibits buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.


Page 10/
The Court made an Inquiry to all parties and witness on 8 August 2550. All parties agreed to have the DCECP from Central Section to make Measurement from the Coast Line at MSL to find the distance of 100 meters with the co-operation from the Officials from the Department which is in charge of the Bench Mark (BM.)on Thappraya Mountain. Whatever the result would be then all parties would accept that result ( Documents No: 99 / 1 – 99 / 2 ). Later on, 1st Plaint Receiver reported to the court that the BM. on Thappraya Mountain belongs to the Meteorology Department. There are alphabets written on the head of BM.say Or.Dtor. MSL Chor.Bor. 0029 and the BM. MSL values 58.989 meters from MSL. Later on the DCECP proceeded the Measurement from Coast line at MSL to the Disputed Building as ordered by court. The Officials from the DCECP made the measurement since 15 until 17 November 2550 on the presence of both parties and the Officials from the Meteorology Department including interested persons all


together 27 persons by starting from the BM.No: Or.Dtor. MSL Chor.Bor. 0029 which values 58.989 meters from MSL around the Chonburi Provincial Meteorology Department (Pattaya) on Thappraya Mountain. Proceeded the measurement by using a Specific camera to make Levels Transfer down along the road that lead to Royal Cliff Hotel, until meet Pratamnak road and up to Soi Pratamnak 5, then turn left in to the aforementioned Soi until reaching Jomtien Beach, then walk the distance along the footpath until reaching the Disputed building. The total distance was 3.50 Kilometers. Then using the Camera to see from the front of aforementioned project return along the same way back till reaching the BM. on Thappraya mountain to check for accuracy. In each point that had been measured would be marked by Temporary Bench Mark (B.M.T.) for all the way. There were 2 B.M.T. marked around the area of Jomtien Beach in front of the construction of 2nd Plaint Receiver which were the mark at MSL at 0.00 meters and 1.4477 meters and the measurement was made from both marks till reaching the front of Disputed building and making BMT all the way. The result of measurement was shown in the Chart which submitted to court that the Distance 100 meters from the Coast line at MSL on North side pass Public area was 50.15 meters and deep into the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver was 49.85 meters. As for the South side pass Public area was 49.60 meters and deep into the land of 2nd Plaint Receiver was 50.40 meters. It is shown on the Chart of DCECP that the Border line of Disputed building, on the side that is close to CCBL was away from the distance of


Page 11/
100 meter from Coast line at MSL for approx. 4.00 meters and 3.00 meters. And Mr. Veera Wisuthirattanakul, co-measurer gave his testimony on 15 January 2551 stated that the Disputed building is located from the MSL for 103 and 102 meters on each side of the building. If the measurement is made from the CCBL of the Royal Decree B.E. 2521, it will gain the same distance as measuring from the MSL inward on to the land for 100 meters also. The Measurement by DCECP therefore was trustable. When it is shown that the Disputed building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is located more than 100 meters from Coast Line at the MSL however, the Disputed building is therefore not located within the distance 200 meters measureing from the CCL as shown on the Annexed Map of Royal Decree as referred to 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, therefore the Permission by 1st Plaint Receiver which permitted 2nd Plaint Receiver to construct the Disputed building by the License No: 162 / 2550, Issued date: 28 November 2549 was certainly legal.

As for the additional Plaint made by 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs which stated that the building on the South side which is the outer edge of building is located away from the Land Title Deed No: 1149 which owned by Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee for 1(one) meter only so it is in contrary to 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 was 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 which fixes that the outer edge of Tall buildings or Extra large buildings, both above or under the ground must set back for more than 6 (six) meters from other person’s lands and public roads, however not including the foundation part of building. Therefore the building permit which issued to 2nd Plaint Receiver is not in accordance with the law. It is seen that on 30 November B.E. 2548,Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee had registered the aforemen- tioned 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 then issued a Written document on 26 December B.E. 2548 to allow 2nd Plaint Receiver construct some parts of building on the aforementioned land. Therefore 2nd Plaint Receiver has received the right over the “Servitude” land of Title Deed No: 1149 by Juristic Act which makes Mr. Kriangchai Panichpakdee including other outsiders or Transferees of the Title Deed No: 1149 to be not capable to operate this land in the contrary way to the uses of walk way, drive way and all types of utilities for the Land Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238 to be in accordance with Phrase 1 of Section 1299 and Section 1387 of Civil Codes. 2nd Plaint Receiver applied for a Construction License on 27 December B.E. 2548 by applied Title Deed No: 1149 with Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238 by using it for Inside Project roads for the Disputed building. The road is 6 (six) meters wide which shown on the Deed combination Chart and Project Area Plan that the Disputed building is located on the land Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238 by the South side of building which is the outer edge of building is located only 1 (one) meter from the boundary line of Title Deed No: 1149 . However when adding with the Title Deed No: 1149 which is the “Servitude” of Title Deed No: 104606 and 123238 and used to be Inside Project roads which is 6 (six) meter wide, then altogether will be 7 (seven) meter wide. Therefore the Disputed building has its outer edge of building, both above or under the ground set back from other person’s lands and public roads for over 6 (six) meter which is not contrary to 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 was 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, Therefore the claim of 1st – 5th and 8th – 10th Plaintiffs is not reasonable.

As the claim of 10 Plaintiffs which claimed that if the construction is allowed to be constructed until it is completed however, it will change wind directions from the ocean which originally blew through to the Building of the 10 Plaintiffs. And will also block sceneries which used to be able to see the beach and


Page 13/
The Sea which will impact Physical and mental conditions of the 10 Plaintiffs and the other residents in the building. 1st Plaint Receiver therefore could not issue a construction permit for 2nd Plaint Receiver. It is found that 2nd Plaint Receiver had applied for a construction license to construct Kor. Sor. Lor. Type of building with 27 floors from 1st Plaint Receiver. The location of Disputed building is located in



Nongprue Sub-district, Banglamung District, Chonburi Province which has been listed to be the Red Zone Area for mainly used for Commercial and Trade, Residential, Government Official, Utility Purposes. As for other purposes of use of land however will not be over 10 % of the this type of land as referred to Clause 7 ( 3 ) together with Clause 10 of Ministerial Regulations enforcing the Pattaya City Combination Plan, Chonburi Province B.E. 2546. 2nd Plaint Receiver applied for had applied for a construction license to construct the Disputed building for Residential purpose. Even though the height is over 14 meters or it is a 27 floor building but it is not prohibited to be constructed or used for Residential purpose whatsoever, so the aforementioned land is the land that 1st Plaint Receiver can issue a construction license for 2nd Plaint Receiver, therefore the claim of the 10 Plaintiffs is not reasonable.

6) By Summary, the Judicial who states the case sees that this case should be dismissed.

Mr. Sujin Juthathipatai
- Signed -
- Judicial who states the Case
Judge of the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court