Waterfront To build or to smash The lawyer who bought the statement after the Supreme Court ruled on the deed of land “Arad” is not lawful. The plot of the giant condominium land comes from the same paperwork. The government should speed up the inspection and find out who is responsible. Lastly, if the case is the same and may have the same damage. Meanwhile, the proceeding of the rehabilitation of the bankruptcy court after the person responsible for the withdrawal of the case. The buyer prepares to collect documents to return the property.
Journalists reported that (July 25, 61) at the office of Mackintosh Co., South Pattaya Road, Pattaya, Chonburi, Mr. Chalermwat Wimook as a legal advisor. Rent Room Condo Waterfront. Pattaya Beach South Pattaya, Banglamung Chonburi led the team of lawyers. Together with the leasing group, press conference on the progress in the case of Condo Condo Waterfront Pattaya. The building is unclear. Demolition of buildings Or can it be launched? Include the request. Let the state or agency concerned investigate the issue of land title documents on the location of the project tangibly. After passing the Supreme Court has a verdict of 6504/250 on September 21, 2560, which appealed to the verdict on April 4, 2561, which states that the competent official issued a deed No. 89096 to. Because of the soil and rock, the erosion of sea water and dams, the soil and rocks in the sea. In this case, from the examination of the land system, the competent official would know the origin of the land. I tried to look at the space appearing in the certificate. Regardless of the correct boundaries, it is wrong to do so. While seven officials, five government officials and two Arakanites, the court found the defendants guilty of four to seven years of imprisonment. Two defendants were dismissed.
In that case, Mr. Chalermwat Reported that this may even not be directly related to the Waterfront building. Last but not least, it will be effective sooner or later, and this will have an impact on the leases, which are not yet fair in terms of damage. The land on which the Waterfront project is located. Indeed, it is a privilege document from Aug 1, 93, of Mr. Samantha, the same auspicious art, which has been notified of the issue of a license since 1955 in the area of ??2.2.16 rai before it was split. The number of copies is 5 and 2 are sold to Achan Land, one for title deed and the other 3 for sale to Bali Hai or Waterfront Project. So, when the Supreme Court ruled that the deed of the. Acha Land is wrongly deeded. Finally, if all source documentation is not verified It also leaves the matter unfinished until it is prosecuted and checked for the source of the document. Assuming that the land of the Waterfront Project has some of the wrong areas, this will result in damage to the buyers, including Bali Hai Co., Ltd. Because the two parts are purchased in accordance with all legal procedures and principles. So the state should pay attention to investigate and find out who is responsible for the problem seriously. Rather than letting the private or the renter do the work themselves, in spite of the fault of the authorities involved in granting or issuing the license. Only now, the project has a problem with the suspension of construction. Building Control Act In particular, the Pattaya area has now ordered the demolition of the area around 4,000-5,000,
Mr. Panthawat Tulsakul, another legal advisor It is doubtful that for this land, there is a request for a document to be issued in August, 1955, in the area of ??2.2.16 rai, before requesting to be Miss. 3, No. 93, Naklua in 1956, but the land was increased to 5.2.51 acres. Later in 1957, there were 3 subdivisions. The other 5 were divided into 2, 388 and 389 were sold to Asha. Land Co., Ltd. and the land title deed no. 83096 in 1998 with more than 4 land plots. Miss. 3, 3, 93,442 and 525, which was issued in 1963, is a total area of ??more than 1 rai, and issued as a deed to the rear as a whole. The area is about 2: 2: 26 rai. It is surprising that all the land has changed throughout. In spite of the original document, there was only 2: 2: 16 rai, which in the matter of the Supreme Court ruling was the offense of behavior of persons 157 not about the delisting of land. After this, the Director General of the Land Department or relevant agencies must seriously examine.
Mr. Chalermwat Ending that, Bali Hai Co., Ltd. has filed for business rehabilitation or the Central Bankruptcy Court, but the lease is opposed. Even with the withdrawal, it is still unclear how it will proceed. Pattaya City has ordered the demolition of the excess building but has not yet done so. At present, the renters are gathering and gathering important documents to claim damages from the project, ie Bali Hai, which would be prosecuted through the Pattaya court soon. If there is any progress, it will continue.