.jpg)
The Fourth hearing by the Supreme Court saw five witnesses from various Land Departments, both Central and local. They included supervisor of the Huay Kwang land department, Wuthisith Chanthasutr (นายวุฒิสิทธิ์ จันทสูตร), Cartographer, Amorn Boontham (นายอมร บุญธรรม)and land department officials, Miss Nipa Yimsupa(น.ส.นิทรา เอี่ยมสุภา), Yani Khonbun (นางญานี คงบุญ)and Tewee Danyutthasin (นายทวี ด่านยุทธศิลป์).The first witness was the land department cartographer, Amorn Boontham. It was his task to convert the 13 separate land plots into the 4 land plots which were put up for auction. He testified that the order to do the conversion came from the then finance permanent secretary, who was the deputy Chairman of the FIDF, who had sent a letter to the Huay Kwang office asking the office to speed up the process. When asked to show the letter he was unable to do so, but stated that the office was happy to comply. He also testified that he felt that the process seemed rushed as he ended up having to work throughout a weekend to complete the process in time, and in the process, acknowledged that his supervisor had written to him, extolling upon him to work with more diligence.
Amorn's supervisor who wrote the note, Wuthisith Chanthasutr, told the court the note was meant to urge Amorn not to be late in finishing his work, and that there was nothing more to it. He explained that as the FIDF had put in an official request, the land department was obliged to complete the task within 30 days, he stated that he only wrote the note when he realised that after 25 days had passed the process had still not been completed. When asked why the order was so urgent, he explained to the court that as the land had been barren for a long period of time, there was a 30 year clause, which meant that the land department would not be able to re-survey the plots in question if they had not completed the task in time, which would have meant that the land would fall into a different category. By being able to re-survey, new chanotes (Title Deeds) could be issued which would enable the seller,(FIDF) ensure the maximum price at auction as there would be no question on actual land size, boundaries and ownership rights.
Wuthisith also testified about the process of transferring of the title deeds, and the documents required which if the buyer was married, needed the consent of the spouse, along with copies of marriage certificates and identity cards of both people. Without these, the land department cannot transfer ownership.
Three other witnesses produced by the plaintiff insisted nothing unusual had occurred in the process of merging 13 plots of land into one in order to be auctioned off by the FIDF. No one except Amorn had raised doubts as to whether the process was rushed so the deal could be completed quickly.
The prosecutor then explained to the court that one of it's witnesses, Kaewsan Atibodhi, would be unable to attend the hearing on the 29th as originally scheduled, and asked that the defence start to call witnesses, and that the final plaintiff witness would testify at a later date.
The bench agreed and scheduled the next hearing for 29th July 2008, which although originally scheduled, still showed a faster pace for the hearings.
