"Aunt Da," "Uncle Wan," and Aunt Buakai have filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Division accusing land officials of wrongdoing under Section 157 for transferring a land deed. to Wat Pa Adun. They claim it is inherited land, not temple land, and question a 1998 temple establishment document listing 12 structures that were not found during site inspection.
At 10:00 a.m. on 23 Sept 2026, Ms. Chommanee Noichan, known as “Aunt Da,” along with Mr. Woradet Changbu, or “Uncle Wan,” brought Ms. Buakai Sorasamut and a group of heirs of “Grandpa Hiang” to the Central Investigation Bureau’s Anti-Corruption Division to file a complaint. They alleged that some officials at the Khon Kaen Land Office might have acted improperly in changing the name on the land deed of Wat Pa Adun, requesting an investigation into the land transfer process.
Mr. Woradet, or Uncle Wan, said today they came to report the land transfer case at the Khon Kaen Land Office, alleging that about three to four officials acted improperly, while other staff may have supported or facilitated this misconduct in transferring the land deed managed by Ms. Buakai, the estate executor. The heirs believe this action was illegal.
Mr. Woradet stated that the land recipient is the temple, but the heirs see legal issues with the temple’s status. They insist that on the transfer date, relatives and heirs did not consent to or know of the transaction, which they attribute to misunderstandings about the land’s status.
Regarding claims that the land belonged to the temple since 1990, Mr. Woradet explained that, according to the heirs’ understanding, the land parcel is designated for temple construction under Section 33 (2), not temple land under Section 33 (1). If it were temple land, it would have belonged to the temple from the time it was donated as claimed.
In this case, the heirs believe the land transfer violates the donor “Mr. Hiang’s” intention, who donated the land specifically for building a temple. They argue the transfer should be reviewed to ensure it complies with the law and the donor’s intent.
Mr. Woradet added that the deed transferred is not temple land. The land the heirs accept as temple property is a different parcel from the transferred deed. The transferred deed covers land under Section 33 (2), meant for temple construction, and the heirs believe the temple must first be completed according to its purpose.
Furthermore, the heirs found a 1998 document or map listing 12 structures at the temple site, but on-site inspection found none. They suspect this information was used to support the temple establishment request even though the actual conditions don’t match the documents. They call for verification of whether the temple’s founding complied with legal procedures.
Mr. Woradet said that in 1998 documents were submitted and the Sangha Supreme Council believed structures existed and approved the temple’s establishment. However, retrospective inspection showing no such structures renders that approval invalid.
Mr. Woradet emphasized that today’s complaint is a new case, and they have submitted related evidence to investigators to examine all facts and the land transfer process.
Ms. Chommanee, or Aunt Da, said the public has criticized the family for trying to take temple land, but she insists the land is not temple property but inherited from their ancestor, Mr. Hiang. The family has been fighting over this land for over 20 years.
Aunt Da said that over the years, they have asked various agencies to verify whether the approximately 21 rai belongs to the temple. Many agencies and senior monks responded that it was not a temple because no records exist in their systems.
However, after the land transfer on 16 September, the heirs sent an inquiry to the Khon Kaen Provincial Office of Buddhism. The director stated it has been a temple since 1949, while the National Office of Buddhism said since 1998, and their lawyers said since 1982.
Aunt Da questioned the temple’s actual establishment date, noting conflicting information. She also raised doubts about the appointment of an abbot in 1992, while the heirs claim the temple did not legally exist at that time.
Aunt Da continued that on 3 September, the heirs submitted a letter opposing the transfer to the Khon Kaen Land Office, but the deed was still transferred. The 21-rai deed case remains before the Supreme Court, with no verdict yet, but the deed was transferred to the temple. She questioned why no prior verification was done.
Aunt Da said they came today to file the complaint so the public knows who is involved in the land transfer. Mr. Hiang has many heirs, and the family has consistently fought for land rights. She noted that the country has land laws and regulations, yet the heirs have been pressured to stay silent or face legal action simply for asserting their family’s land rights.
She affirmed that if the other party presents documents verifying the temple and land status, they should be allowed to review and verify them. Aunt Da accused some evidence presented by the opposing side as 100 percent false.
Mr. Woradet added that the heirs respect court orders but, upon reviewing past rulings between the temple abbot and Aunt Buakai, they suspect the opposing party may not hold legitimate abbot status or that the temple is legally recognized. Meanwhile, the heirs own the deed. Due to these doubts about the opposing party’s and temple’s status at that time, the heirs plan to pursue legal avenues to reopen the case and have the court reconsider these issues.
Aunt Da stressed that the situation does not reflect Mr. Hiang’s intent in establishing the temple. The heirs see many inconsistencies with the facts and request relevant agencies to investigate thoroughly, comparing evidence from both sides.
Aunt Da also addressed Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Pakorn Nilprapunt, overseeing the National Office of Buddhism, questioning why no on-site investigation has been conducted despite public complaints. She urged for both parties to be summoned to present evidence to determine who holds the correct documentation.
She stated that if the heirs are at fault, they are ready to comply with the law but questioned why relevant agencies hesitate to investigate, fearing that the truth might be revealed. She also questioned whether the National Office of Buddhism produced false documents and called on responsible ministers to take charge rather than allowing social media to unfairly criticize the heirs.
Aunt Da emphasized, "This land is important due to ownership rights. Otherwise, anyone could transfer land arbitrarily. The country has laws—why must rights be violated like this?"