Resident 'Ashton Asoke' moves forward to fight Submit a new case to the Administrative Court Before the statute of limitations expires on October 25th after no progress from Ananda. and related government agencies It is expected that the court will take 1- 6 months to consider.

The case of the luxury condominium project "Ashton Asoke" of Ananda Development Public Company Limited, under the operations of Ananda MF Asia Asoke Company Limited, has been a protracted lawsuit. Many years of complaints about entrances and exits to the project According to the requirements for high-rise buildings and extra-large buildings Including the use of land. Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) until the Supreme Administrative Court ruled "Revoke the construction permit" on July 27, 2023. Most recently, the condominium juristic person and "residents" of the Ashton Asoke project assigned Mr. Pisut Rakwong and Ms. Yaowalak Suleesthira from the law office Pisut and Partners. Rs Limited as a lawyer Came to submit a request to the Administrative Court to consider a new case. Before the statute of limitations expires on October 25th after no progress from Ananda. and related government agencies It is expected that the court will take 1- 6 months to consider.

Pisut Rakwong and Yaowalak Sulisthira from the law firm Pisut and Partners Company Limited, as juristic person lawyers and residents of Ashton Asoke Condo, said they have submitted a request to the Administrative Court to reconsider the case. There are the following issues: Issue 1: Objectives of expropriation. The Supreme Administrative Court considered the objectives of expropriation from two Royal Decrees, namely:

The 1995 Act specifying the boundaries of land in the area to be expropriated specifies the objectives of the expropriation: “To build an expressway according to the first phase of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Project”

Royal Decree specifying the boundaries of land in the area to be expropriated (No. 2) B.E. 2539 (This is the version issued to amend the 1995 edition regarding expropriation officials. It is not specified. with the objective of expropriation

The reason for requesting a new trial is the Royal Decree specifying land boundaries in the area where land related to the Blue Line project will be expropriated. which covers the area around the Ashton Asoke project, a total of 9 documents, each of which specifies the purpose of the expropriation.

The co-owners are of the view that considering the objectives of determining the boundaries of expropriated land for the Blue Line Project, it is necessary to consider the objectives specified in every Royal Decree related to the Blue Line Project.

The 2007 Royal Decree specifying the land boundaries in the area to be expropriated is the most recent Royal Decree on land expropriation for the Blue Line electric train project. Specify the objective: “To create or provide transportation by electric train and parking for passengers. as well as businesses related to the electric train business and other businesses for the benefit of the Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand and the public in using the electric train service.”

The MRTA's permission to use the land as an entrance-exit to the project in return for a parking building with usable space is “Provide parking space” which is considered part of "Electric Railway Business" and also generates additional income from collecting parking fees for the MRTA without the MRTA losing any benefit for the purpose of expropriation.

Issue 2: MRTA authority. The Administrative Court pointed out that MRTA does not have the authority to allow land obtained from expropriation to be used as an entrance and exit to the project, which is the reason for requesting a new trial. After the Supreme Administrative Court ruled, MRTA has made improvements to the entrances and exits. Ashton Asoke Project by using it as an entrance-exit parking area of the MRTA to provide service to the public. which is the use of land according to the purpose of expropriation MRTA is therefore likely to allow the use of such land. It is a way to enter and exit the Ashton Asoke project in addition to using the land for the purpose of expropriation.

from the joint owners using the entrance-exit projects on a daily basis The co-owner believes that MRTA has used the underground area of the said entrance-exit as part of the structure of the Sukhumvit subway station, which consists of the subway station building and the subway rail system, which is a mass transit operation that meets its objectives. of expropriation. Therefore, granting permission to such land It is the entrance-exit entrance to the Ashton project. Asoke, together with being used as an entrance-exit parking area for MRTA, therefore does not affect the expropriation objective. And it is not just land use for the benefit of the Ashton Asoke project.

In this matter, the juristic person will request the court to inspect the disputed location and issue an order. MRTA has also sent plans and underground work systems to support the court's fact-finding. If MRTA has made use of the underground entrance-exit area, This will cause the outcome of the case to change. Even though the Administrative Court considers that the use of land is an entrance-exit The project still does not meet the expropriation objectives. But when the principle that the state must use land according to the purpose of expropriation aims to protect the original owner of the land or the heir. (Providing the right to request return of land not used for the purpose of expropriation) But it appears that the time period for the original landowner or heir to request return of the land has expired. The said land therefore becomes the absolute ownership of the MRTA. Therefore, the MRTA allows the said land to be used as an entrance-exit to the project.

“We have studied the information and found that if there is a new trial in the Ashton Asoke case, what are the reasons that could bring about a change? So I looked at other points containing facts or new evidence. to change the judgment.”

Residents of Ashton Asoke have contacted the MRTA to request information because they believe that the land in front of the Ashton Asoke project should be used for structural work or system work which is part of the Sukhumvit BTS station. The interpretation from the judgment is that there was no mention of the use of the underground area in that area. Initially, the MRTA gave information that there should be information but would like to check first.

The legal team considers that The period for requesting a new trial is about to expire on October 25th, but has not yet received information from the MRTA. Therefore, the request for a new trial in the Ashton Asoke case was filed yesterday (19) Oct.) is therefore the last option. Because the time is almost up Therefore, a request for a new trial must be filed to preserve rights.

“Because if MRTA's underground rights are actually used, it means that the land has been used according to the expropriation purpose. Just come to the Ashton Asoke project to use the common exit. This issue has never been raised in the previous Ashton Asoke trial, being the first issue.”

The legal team also studied information about other projects that use the same entrances and exits of the MRTA and found that every MRTA project has a right to reserve that the MRTA can change the entrances and exits. Last time, the Administrative Court stated that if there are conditions that can be changed throughout this entrance and exit. Permanently unstable But from examining every project from the information that can be found disclosed on public websites, there are 2-3 examples of projects that I would like to present to the court that If the Ashton Asoke project is stuck and unable to use the entrances and exits for the reason that the court has determined that it is "not" a permanent way, the MRTA can change the entrances and exits throughout that time. Other projects are the same.

The residents want to present to the court that The true intention of The MRTA granting permission to many projects, not just Ashton Asoke, is unlikely to benefit only Ananda. But it is more about developing real estate around the train station project, and the fact that the MRTA has issued permits in this way to everyone shows that there is no intention to change the entrance or exit. Considered new evidence! In the original case, there was no suggestion that There are many other projects that have permission with the same conditions.

Recently, the MRTA has adjusted the area to allow full access to the parking lot. which the villagers viewed Even if the court considers that during the period when the entrance and exit were closed, Ananda was allowed to use it for construction. But now, after the court's judgment, MRTA has done everything correctly. Therefore, it should be considered a matter that can be fixed. It is considered that the land has been used according to its intended purpose. of expropriation

Yaowalak stated that if you look at the expropriation law, it protects the original landowner or heir in the event that a government agency expropriates it. Then use the land to meet the intended purpose. The person who can request the original land must be the original land owner or heir within the legal period of not exceeding 2 years from the date of expropriation.

Here, “we try to show the court that The original land protection period has passed. Even if the court views it as incorrect Must be able to solve it. But I want to present it to the court that People protected by law no longer have the right to request expropriation.”

Therefore, I would like the court to consider the fact that at present the area has been fixed for the purpose of expropriation. to be used as a common solution I want the court to use its discretion to review this matter again. There are many reasons for filing a petition with the Administrative Court to consider the new Ashton Asoke case.

“After submission, the court will first consider whether to accept it for a new trial or not. The time period depends on the court considering each case, which varies from the fastest experience of 1 month to 6 months.”

Thana Terattanachai, director of the Ashton Asoke juristic person, said that the reason for submitting a petition to the Administrative Court to reconsider the “Ashton Asoke” case was because the juristic person and co-owners (residents) saw that even though various agencies It will come out stating that it is in the process of being fixed.

“But I don't know how long it will take, so I don't want to stay silent because right now, what cannot be denied is that the residents have suffered and are damaged, and no one dares to buy again. Can't refinance"

The legal entity and co-owners (residents) are therefore ready to fight! By using the rights that are available according to the law that allows for action. to ask for mercy from the court to consider a new case Before the statute of limitations expires within 90 days, which is October 25th.

Source:https://www.bangkokbiznews.com/property/1094661

Date 20/10/2023