Officials moved onto Nui Beach (หาดนุ้ย) in Karon subdistrict, Phuket, on 20 July 2026 and began dismantling structures that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) says encroach on the Nak Koet Mountain Range National Reserved Forest. The Ministry’s own news page and the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), a government agency under MNRE, together document three dated points on this timeline: a prime-ministerial site visit on 16 May 2026, a Forestry Department removal notice with a 9 July compliance deadline, and this week’s physical demolition. This article covers only the Nui Beach case; it is a separate parcel from the Sirinat National Park cases in Sakhu and Cherng Talay that other Thai outlets have also covered this month, and it should not be read as reporting on those.
What the record establishes
- Location and legal basis. The targeted structures sit on land the government describes as Nak Koet Mountain Range National Reserved Forest (ป่าสงวนแห่งชาติ ป่าเทือกเขานาคเกิด) in Karon subdistrict, Mueang Phuket district — reserved-forest land under the National Reserved Forest Act, not a national park.
- Scale — sources do not agree, and this article does not force them to. Komchadluek and Thai PBS, reporting from the site on 20 July, put the disputed area at 18 rai and its estimated value at more than THB 2 billion; Thai Rath, also dated 20 July, reports the same figures and that Minister Suchart Chomklin and Deputy Interior Minister Worasit Liangprasit led officials onto the site in person. The Ministry’s own case page describes a smaller area instead: about 15 rai 49 square wah, tied to 12 named structures (shops, a concrete platform, a single-storey building, a massage facility, and a naga statue with a pool). Houseviser found no source reconciling the 18-rai field figure with the ministry page’s 15-rai-49-square-wah figure; they may describe different stages, sub-parcels, or survey methods. Both are reported here, each attributed to its own source, rather than merged into one number.
- Structures — also inconsistent by source and date. The Forestry Department’s notice ordering removal by 9 July 2026 covered 39 structures, described in reporting on the notice as the remainder of items left over from an earlier 2020 (BE 2563) demolition, plus a fence, plus 36 further items seized in 2024 (BE 2567) — see Dailynews’s coverage of the notice and the Ministry’s case page. Field reports from the 20–21 July operation instead describe 50 structures being removed: Thai PBS’s 21 July update reports the second day of demolition had passed the halfway mark, about 25 of 50 items removed, with the larger, more solidly built structures left for later. Houseviser found no source reconciling 39 with 50 and reports both, dated and attributed, rather than treating them as the same count.
- Personnel. More than 400 officials from the Forestry Department, the Department of National Parks, police, and local administrative units took part in the 20–21 July operation, working with heavy machinery, per Thai PBS and Komchadluek.
- Deadline history. The Forestry Department notice above ordered occupants to remove the 39 structures it listed by 9 July 2026; when that deadline passed without compliance, the department proceeded with the 20 July forced removal. Field reports on that operation cite 50 structures, a different count from the notice’s 39 (see Scale and Structures above) — Houseviser does not treat this as confirmation that the operation’s scope grew, only that the figures differ.
The ministry’s own case page and multiple independent outlets covering the physical operation do not describe the same area or the same structure count, as shown above. This article reports each figure with its own source and date rather than presenting a single reconciled number that none of the sources actually supports.
The occupant’s side and the court challenge
A representative of the group occupying the site confronted officials on-site and formally objected to the removal of the 50 items, according to Komchadluek’s 20 July report. The occupant’s side also filed for an emergency injunction with the Administrative Court, which Thai PBS reported on 21 July had scheduled a hearing for 24 July 2026 — after demolition had already begun. Thai PBS’s account also records the occupant’s side questioning why officials proceeded before a court ruling, and noting they would consider legal action against the officials depending on the outcome.
Unknown: Houseviser could not independently retrieve the outcome of the 24 July hearing. None of the sources gathered for this article report a ruling, an interim order, or a case number. This is a live legal question, not a settled one, and the demolition described above proceeded before that hearing took place.
The land’s title history, as reported by Thai Rath in earlier coverage of the same dispute, traces to a Supreme Court ruling that revoked an Nor Sor 3 Kor document covering the Nui Beach parcel after finding it had been built on an unrelated So Kor 1 claim from several kilometres away. This history is reported here as Thai Rath’s account of the ruling, not as independently verified from the court text — the Supreme Court’s own case record was not checked for this article.
A separate, unverified claim: foreign-held land nearby
At the same site visit, Minister Suchart said officials had identified roughly 400 land plots in Phuket allegedly held by foreign nationals in what he described as a possible violation of Thai land law, and that authorities were checking whether nominee arrangements were involved. Thai Rath quotes him saying enforcement would follow “without exception” if violations are confirmed.
Allegation, not a finding: this is a minister’s statement that a screening or investigation is underway, not a completed case, a list of named plots, or a court or DBD finding against any specific owner. It is also a separate claim from the Nui Beach demolition itself — the 400-plot figure describes a wider area of Phuket land ownership the ministry says it is reviewing, not the 18-rai site being demolished. Houseviser found no government release naming any of the 400 plots, their location within Phuket, or their current owners. Readers should not treat this figure as confirmation that any particular property, company, or individual holds land unlawfully.
What it may mean for Phuket property
Houseviser analysis. The Nui Beach operation is enforcement against land the government says was never lawfully titled to begin with, following a court ruling on the underlying document — it is not a new tax, zoning change, or foreign-ownership rule that affects lawfully titled property elsewhere in Phuket. For buyers and owners, the practical read is narrower: it is a reminder that a Nor Sor 3 Kor or other pre-Chanote title can still be challenged years later if its original issuance is defective, which is why due-diligence on title history — not just the current document — matters before purchase. See our guides to Nor Sor 3 Kor titles and the Thailand property due-diligence checklist.
The minister’s separate 400-plot claim, if it develops into a formal review, would sit alongside the nominee-company enforcement Houseviser has covered elsewhere — see our guide to how foreigners hold Thai property — but as of this article it is a stated intention to check, not a published list or an enforcement action against identified land.
What remains unknown
- Why the ministry’s own case page (15 rai 49 square wah, 12 structures) and the 20–21 July field reports (18 rai, 50 structures) describe different areas and counts, and why the 9 July removal notice’s 39 structures does not match either figure.
- The outcome of the 24 July Administrative Court hearing.
- The identity of the party or company that held the site and the current status of any criminal or civil case against them — no source reviewed for this article names a company or individual, and Houseviser is not naming one on the strength of an unconfirmed search result.
- Full text of the underlying Supreme Court ruling on the Nor Sor 3 Kor document; Houseviser relied on press accounts of it, not the court record itself.
- Any location, ownership, or case detail behind the minister’s 400-plot claim.
- Whether the remaining roughly half of the 50 structures have since been removed, and the final reclaimed area if it differs from the reported 18 rai.