Study on understanding how government is
resolving Land confiscation in Myanmar
Share Mercy
Study on FIVE Land Concessions Which
had been Resolved (2015 February)
For feedback: sharemercy@gmail.com
Study on understanding how
government is resolving Land
confiscation in Myanmar
Study on the resoved land disputes from socialjustice, and ethical justice point of view
Share Mercy made this project withthefundingandtechnical
expertise supportfrom Land Core Group during Octoberto
December2014.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
4
List of Acronyms
6
Foreward
7
Executive Summary
9
1. Thilawa Deep Sea Port and Special Economic Zone
17
2.Ayashwewah Company's Deep Water Paddy Farm, Fish Pond and Fisheries
35
Project
3. Pantanaw UrbanizationProject
69
4. Myaungmya Industrial Zone
79
5.Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Development Project of Dr. Than Htut in
92
Nyuang Don Township
Analysis and General Recommendations
101
Annex
106
i. The questionnaire used in the Study
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 3
Acknowledgments
First of all, we would like to express our deep appreciation to the Land Core Group which supports us
in term of technical expertise and funding to make this study happen. Particularly, U Shwe Thein
(Honorarium Chairman of LCG) and Glenn (Technical Consultant) for their valued advices and inputs
to this study as well as Robert Oberndorf Rob (Resource Law Specialist) for his guidelines and
contributions.
In addition, the same goes to Share Mercy Myanmar NGO Legal Consultant @ Legal Advocate,
Peasatns Affairs Service Provider, Tharpaund Township Member of Parliament, Thilawa region
Thilawa Social Development Organizaiton, Ayeyawaddy Region Land Problems Resolving Support
Committee Memers namely Secretary U Maung Maung Tar, Pathein Committee, U Myo Min Tun,
Myaungmya Township Representative Daw Si Si Myint, Honourary Farmer Network (Ayeyawaddy)
for assistance throughout the study, networking, and information sharing.
Last but not the least, we would like to thank those who help us from all the townships involved in this
five cases; from civil societies and peasants who actively participated in the interviews, focus groups
discussions and In-depth In-terview and direct observations, transportion; motor taxi drivers, taxi and
bus drivers, conductors and so on.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 4
List of Acronyms
DPDC
DistrictPeace and Development Council
GAD
General Administration Department
LMCs
Land Mangement Committees
MP
Member of the Parliament
SEZ
Special Economic Zone
SLORC
Settlement and Land Record Department
SPDC
State Peace and Development Council
TLMC
Township Land Management Committee
TPDC
TownshipPeace and Development Council
UMFCCI
Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry
VTLMC
Village Tract Land Management Committee
VTPDC
Village Tract Peace and Development Council
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 5
Foreward
Share Mercy has started the land governance programme in Htantapin Township, Yangon Region in
2013; strengthening Capacity, and Networking, Formation of Community Based Organizations
project. At the end of the project, 11 Cases were selected from Farmland, Vacant Land, Fallow Land,
Virgin Land, and Pasture, Grave-yards Land Concessions in Htantapin Township, Yangon Region,
Bago Region, Ayeyawadd Region and Taninthayi Regions and published as a book titled “Myanmar
Spring and Ugly Land Concessions”. More than that, Htantapin Land Concession case was reported in
the form of “Documentray Film” and distributed to the figures, MPs, Politicians, Policy Shapers,
Peasants, and Networks, and remainders stakeholders.
“Myanmar Spring and Ugly Land Concessions” is best distributed and for the second time, we
designed to study how government is responding to the land concessions cases and how they
responded for compensation and lossess to the one who lost their land. To realize these ideas, we
discussed with LCG (Land Core Group) and make it possible during September 2014- January 2015.
The study was done especially from legal point as well as social justice point of views as well.
As a study strategy, we meet affected peasants, CSO organizations, groups and companies who
concessed the land, relevant departments, MPs who are helping the peasants as many as possible and
analyse and report accordingly.
Study Expected Outcomes
Findings found in the study will be used, considered in drawing National Land Policy, to advocate the
government through the policy makers, figures, and MPs.
Aim
To assess how government departments are resolving land issues and such resolving are justificable to
the laocal people and Union Land and Other type of Land Disputes Investigation Commission Report
and Recommendations are used in Land Concession
The objectives
1. Learn the process of land concession
2. Learn how government departments resolved the land concessions
3. The land-lost farmers’ resettlement, Compensation, Compensation identify and study how they were
done
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 6
Output fromthestudyresults
ThereportreleasedinJanuary2015
Study selectedlanddisputes
Case Name
Tyep
of
Concession
Land Township
Thilawar Deep Sea Port and State Planning
SpecialEconomic Zone
Ayarshwewahprojecttodevelopd
eep-waterfield
Providing
thecompanytoidentifyd
eep water field from
vacant, fallow, virgin
land
Pantanaw Urbanization
Urban
andindustrialexpansion
Urban
andindustrialexpansion
Myaungmya on Industrial Zone
Dr.Than Htut’ Deep Water Providing the Dr.Than
toidentifydeep
Farmland from Vacant, Fallow, Htut
water field from vacant,
Virgion Land Project
fallow, virgin land
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Concessed
Land
(Acre)
Total
Affected
Household/
Acre
Thanhlyin, 5390.53
950/
6
Kyauk Tan
Ward/Villa
ge
(3
Villages
from
Thanhlyin
and Three
Wards from
Kyauktan
Yaygyi,
41200
Inner part
Thapaung,
plus(The
of
Deep
Kangyidaun farmland
Water part,
t,
which were Fish Ponds,
Kyaungkon changed
all
were
e
into
concessed,
business,
in
one
Kangyidau village tract
nt
there
are
Under
less
than
Darka Sub 1000 acre,
Township
it could be
were not around (50)
counted.)
total village
tracts,
in
this
land
concession
case.
Pantanaw
187.08
Three
Villages
Other Part 58.09
Two
of
Villages
Myaungmy
a Kwelwe
Region
Nyaungton 999.21
Three
g
Villages out
Township,
of
Six
Byawthalan
Villages
Page 7
(Total Acre)
Type
of
Concessions
d Village
Land 9 townships
47834.91
acres
Estimated
50-60
Village
Tracts
Among five types of land concessions, two types were not included in this study. They are Village
Tract Land Committee concessed the land and allocated to the debtors of former land user and allocate
for tax in the form of crops, and army land concession. In this study, there are nine townships from
Yangon and Ayeyawaddy Region, covering 50-60 village tracts.
This study lasted for four months at the minimum expenses; we will need another three months to go
deails. We need to stay for about one week at one township. In addition to that having limited
information from the related government deaparments also stood as the barrier to the study. SM also
has limited time to meet MPsalso difficulty to the study.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 8
Executive Summary
History
of
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Land
Page 9
Holding
As per 1963 Land Grant Law, before land concessions, Peasants had to have the land allocation by
Village, Ward Land Committee annually. This decides land access right for the peasant. Peasants are
supposed to sell the produce to the government at the set rate. If peasants failed to sell the produce,
then their right to access will be withdrown. Chairman of the Village Tract Land Committee will have
to allocate the peasants who are suitable to do the farming by taking their livelihood, assets to do the
farming, number of family members into considerations and give to most appropriate persons. Land
Ownership is determind by having tax receipts, registred in the land record department, having bank
loan book, having agricultural loan from the agricultural bank annuaully. Very few percent of the
peasants sell, mortage, rent, exchange, giving the farmland but they did so, broke the rules as they had
difficulties in survival. There are some peasants who had access right by buying from the poor
peasants.
How the Land is acquired
Among five cases, in first Thilawar Case, farmlands were concessed by Resettlement and Housing
Department by force (fifty fully equipped soldiers were standing by on the vehicle); threatening and
abusing power. For Ayeyashwewar case, Divisional Commander ordered the Districts, townships and
village land committees and as per that command they concessed the farmlands after conducting many
meetings with peasants where the authorities mainly threatened and pushed peasants to donate the
farmlands. In Myaungmya Industrial Zone, District Administrative Officer stated that he cancelled
the tax slips and peasants were forced to sign the documents that they agreed farmland to be
transforming into industrial zone. In Nyaungtone, Dr.Than Htut developed the farmland from virgin,
vacant and fallow land. In that farmland establishment by Dr.Than Htut, local peasants’farmlands
were included.
How the Land is used after Acquisition
Japan invested (49) percent in Thilawar economic zone and public companies have (51) percent
respectively. They take advantages and implement the programmes. After land concessions, authoritiy
compensated at 1.5 million per acre but when they re-leased the farmland they advertise to have it at
(270) million per acre.
In Ayeyashwewar Case, they developed the deep water into farmland for paddy, tendered the natural
ponds, and bred the fish. Before farmland concession, they did the company structure and
implemented with the Township In-Charges, Regional In-Charge who had to cover from (3) to (5)
village tracts, thoss regional in-charges had to do the agricultural works by himself, and supervised 50200 acre; those who could do the agricultural works by himself or he could do it with the support of
relatives or neighbourings peasants. Those townships and regional In-Charges were selected by one
own choice, land concessions were done with their presence, plus townships and villages and wards
authorities. If the farmlands were concessed by Township and Regional In-Charges as per their
wishes, then related peasants may or may not have the right to have access to farmland for tax in crop.
If the In-Charge decided to do the agricultural works with his relatives then local former peasants
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 10
could no longer receive the right to access the farmland. There were In-Charges who worked jointly
among four to five In-Charges to implement the tasks from 50-200 acre.
In Panntanaw urbanization national programme, authorities sold out the concessed farmland located
along Yangon-Pathein Hiway road at the rate of 5-6-10 respectively. The buyers were also cronies
from Panntanaw Township.
More than that, Land Allocation Committee from Panntanaw
Urbanization Programme advertised to sell the land on 6.6.2001 in New Light of Myanmar, state
owned newspaper.
In Myaungmya Industrial Zone National Programme Land Concession, authorities made the saw
miller and rice miller move to newly established Industrial Zone. Though they concessed the land for
two villages but only two millers shifted the area. During those days, it was very difficult to access
the industrial zone that they could no longer do the business there.
For Nyaung Don Case, Dr.Than Htut received the right to establish virgin, fallow and vacant land into
farmland but starting from that year onwards, the businessman did the farming for a few acres just to
have the impression that he had been doing agricultural works annually but there was no significant
output there in term of produce.
Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation
Commission
In Thilawar Case, Yangon Land Concessions and Related Disputes Resolving Commission put effort
to include the case into Commission Report. Nevertheless, one can not find any separate and detail
report. However in Land Concessions and Related Disputes Resolving Union Parliament
Commissions Report IV, Commission suggested that local should be granted the compound for houses
and given “Compensation as per the local rate.”
In Ayeyashwewar Case, Union Parliament Report and President Paper II and III stated about
Ayeyashwewar Company Land Concession as a whole occasionally and township after township land
concession were also mentioned with recommendations and solution to the problems repeatedly. By
the side of the Commission, Ayeyawaddy Regional Government Land Commission team leader U
Thein Htun (Kyaung Kone Member of Parliament) and secretary often went down to the ground and
met the locals, collected the voices and pushed the respective office still there were no significant
changes at all.
In Panntanaw Urbanization National Programme, MP from NLD Party assisted but there is no
imporovement. Myaungmya Industrial Zone Local stated that MPs from Commission came down to
the filed and Commission team went round the Industrial Zone area but they failed to meet the locals
that they were unable to talk about how commission did the job specifically.
Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation Commission Report Part II stated
that there were (117834.19) acres were concessed for Industrail Zone and Urbanizaiton Programmes.
Among them (58.09) acres were from Myaungmya Industrial Zone. Sub Commission II, did go to the
ground and meet the locals who involved in land concession. Commission report said, though it was
already four years after establishment of Myaungmya Industrial Zone, but one can hardly see
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 11
functioning industrial zone yet. Commission recommended to cancel the plan and return the area back
to the orginal peasants or if the authority would like to keep on running as Industrial Zone, then they
are supposed to compensate the farmland at local rate prescribed by existing Land Acquisition Act.
Or if the industrial zone committee would like to have it on more accessible areas to have functioning
industrial zone, then they should establish on the land which will not affect the other locals at all.
In Nyaungtone case, despite peasants file the case with the assistance of Share Mercy in March 2014
but MP did not do anything special towards this issue.
In solving the Land and Land Related Disputes, Land Utilization Management Central Committee
which comprised of members of Parliaments and headed by U Nyan Tun was formed on 16 September
2013 and set out the methods for problem solving but MPs voices were only on the air and there were
no actions followed by District and Township General Administration Officers.
Land Utilization Management Committees and Land Management
Committees
In Thilawar Industrial Zone Case, Thilawar Industrial Zone Committee took the role for coordination
with Yangon Region Government. In this coordination committee, National Planning, Human
Settlement and Estate Development Department, personnels from Yangon Region Government,
Yangon Region Agricultural and Irrigation Department personnels were also included. They
conducted the meetings at Thanhlyn Human Settlement and Housing Department with the local
community monthly.
In Ayeyashwewar Case, Land Utilization Committees received the returned land and reallocate to the
original farmland owners for 30 percents or one third or less than that and remainders to the existing
farmers.
In Pantanaw Case, 2014 June, District Land Utilization Committee Chairman challenged that he will
not return the concessed land no matter whoever peasants complained.
In Myaungmya Industrial Zone, Township and Village Land Utilization Management Committee
Chairman issued form (3) for the farmland which was not used for industrial zone purpose after twenty
two years concession.
Nyaungtone case is vacant, fallow and virgin land but the village land utilization Committee managed
beyond their mandate. They decided that Dr.Than Htut should not have the right to do the farming.
When appealing by Dr.Than Htut, Township Land Management Committee stood for Dr.Than Htut
and made the decision three months after appealing; this is beyond the limited time bound. As per
Township Utilization Management Committee decision, Dr.Than Htut can do the business where he
used to do and local peasants can also do the farming on the farmland they have been using every year.
But both the parties are not allowed to expand the farmland at all. The final decision, who shall be
leasehold the lands, the party who will not have the right must abandon the lands _ will be made by the
Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Central Management Committee. In this scenario, Township and
Village Tract Land Management Committee Investigation is quite fair and just. Although the
township gave defeat to Dr. Than Htue, who shall not interrupt the thirty nine farmers growing on 100
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 12
acres until the Central Decision reached. This is none other than the meeting result between Regional
Settlement and Land Record Officer and a representative of Land Disputes Investigation Support
Group.
Post-resolution Updates
In the case of Thilawa the replaced residents reached 8-miles far away from the original place, the land
tax receipt holder got compensation (15) lakh (did not get who had not receipt), crops damages for
(6)years, house plot square feet (25’x’50’) for each, to build house (25) lakhs, transportation charge
for house movement (1.5)lakh, social compensation (8) lakhs, for one cow (60000) ks, one person got
at most around (70) lakhs. No replacements were given the place for those who do farming and the
land who work in the field. The actual cost to build a house was about (40) lakhs. Although gave
vocational training, due to long period of training, did not get any expense for food during training.
Becoming children far away from the school and also far away from the local bus station, some
parents who not occupied motor bike had to stop their children’s education. The more dangerous event
is found bacteria in the water of well dug by the government. In that place due to not having job
opportunities, (6) families hocked their home, (8) families sold completely. Although told would give
the job, applied job hope to get at least lower class job, rejected several times, said a resident. In the
section, finding of JICA’s study, advised, due to missing the original place of replaced residents, for
future confiscation should have the mental treatment for them. For the development of the country, we
the residents living since decade had to leave our parts of the foam with getting any bright yellow
color, now it meant to repay for the common companies of Thilawa Special Industrial Zone who are
calling rates of one acre with (2700) hundred thousand.
In the case of Ayeyar Shwewar, although the original stocks lost completely while losing, in the time
of getting replacement, because of competition with current stock, original stock got back a little bit
more from the sum of (30%).
In the case of Pantanaw, the peasants and residents who were confiscated their lands, how much area
they were grabbed their lands, suffered replacement with a square feet (40’x60’) wide place at the
third road in main road. After destroying own farm economics reached the daily labor worker, some
owed full of debts.
The people who lost their lands in Myaung Mya Industrial Zone, at that time some got (3000) Kyats
and some given their land as a donation. At that time, due to being grabbed the lands parents could not
complete the primary education, so now reached the uneducated parents.
The peasants from the Nyaung Done, some residents who actually cultivated before were grabbed their
lands. Now doing (39) farmers and additional (11) farmers, if they would be sued, being poor from
doing farms, would have to face with extremely poor life. So, they are still lucky.
General Recommendations
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 13
According to Share Mercy's findings through (19) Townships Workshop, small farmers possess only
five acres of land. So, the family if they decend from traditional growers and have committed to
continue growing crops and doing farming till life, they shall be protected not to lose farmlands,
regulate to use one acre from every five acre of farmland to grow any plants or trees or making forest
plot or livestock husbandary.
It should not, the Land Acquisition Act implies to any types of lands must be acquired if the State
Government wanted. There should have the different class of land acquisition based on level of
wealth group in land users _ it means the levels that can be easily acquired; not easily acquired; hardly
be acquired _ that kind of class divisions should be regulated in National Land Law. The farms using
by traditional family farmers in small-scale should be reserved as hardly be acquired farmlands.
If the land was confiscated for the purpose of the State or individual interests, the affected households
should be supported for many times award to rememdy their losses compared to the current life.
In five Land Concession Cases of this paper, owing to the intervention of JICA (Japan International
Cooperation Agency), the local people were disseminated full information, getting chance in
consultative meetings. Such kind of practice should be carried on to anywhere, any time of land
concession. Provided that issuing the last cut-off date, to avoid the subsequent illegal beneficiary
enrolment is also very good practice and that kind of regulation should be included in National Land
By-law.
The Government should help mobilizing the community to organize the Community Watchdog to
oversee how the lands changed to use in other forms from farmland approved by the past junta and
current government are using and whether they are on properly operating as per the regulations, not
only recognizing but also supporting and encouraging should be committed.
Particularly, the commission though they worked very hard, cannot overcome time, money, expertise,
capacity, and resources constraints. The complaint letters are not complete, it is required civil support
groups shall back in term of field visits and observation, legal analysis and case filing.
Besides that, the State has to take action against the investors who cannot operate instructed by
regulations for either Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands or Farmlands which is changed into the use of
other means should be reoccupied or the land returned should be leased back to the origniators _ to do
such things, to give land regrant the adopted regulations made from the Union is ascending from the
grassroot to central administration and again decends from central to grass root work is a real red tape
and it remains a governance issue so it disrupts the local department finds very labourous. The
instructions should prior to cut the case within the Regional Government.
The central government if they approve of resolution of inter-communal land disputes or communal
disputes against the company in the form of 'litigant court' led by an arbiter, there will be a lot of land
disputes solve out on the ground. Therefore, it should be seriously taken into consideration when the
National Land Law is formulated.
Unawareness or misunderstanding the existing laws related to lands of Justice and Police Departments
dwells in one primary cause of disadvantage of rural farmers in land disputes. The period of land
holder right has not been clear due to the holder right disputes, or the land granted to the investors who
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 14
cannot operate with the proper way what the regulations said, and the land _ either Vacant, Fallow and
Virgin or Farmland transformed to use other purposes _ the claim of such holding must reach the State
back; in those instances, if the farmers step down in the land, the former holder sued the farmer
through the Police Department by the excuse of being the past grantee and by Penal Code, the court
has reacted acceptance of such sue cases and carry on investigations is a terrible law breach and
human rights violation. What is more, the court lengthen the period of investigation is really
merciless. Therefore, all in all, the law institutions should be empowered in term of capacity,
accountability and people centred _ and sort of behavioral change revolution should be functioned by
the State Government.
If the Government officials unwelcome or avoid or come for show-off attending the discussion,
training, forums, seminars and workshops held by the civil society, it can be said the two terms are not
truly belived and implementing but they were used to attracts universal impression and show-off only.
After all, the Government Officials should pay visits to those events to meet the civil society and
cultivate the true dialog, offer and bear the criticisms can be the examples of moving towards 'Good
Governance' and 'Clean Government'.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 15
Thilawar Deep Sea Port and Special
Economic Zone
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 16
Introduction
The studywasaboutlocalresidentswerethosewholivedinthevillage Alone Sote, Thanlyin Township, now
they hadbeenmovedtothe Mying Tharya village. Becausethestate confiscated their lands with the
reason of building Thilawa industrial zone and forced them to move. In 2014 on October 10th, our
organization Share Mercy visited to Alone Sote Village and Mying Tharya village and met with some
residents whose lands were confiscated. Our organization Share Mercy discussed with the targeted
farmers and could record the episodes. The persons (Land Lost Farmers) we met are (1) U Kyaw Win,
(2) U Ba Than, (3) UThanTun, (4) U Paw Sein,(5) Daw Lashmi, (6) Daw Ommar, and (7) U
MyaHlaing.
They had been cultivating since over 100 years ago in their farthers’ own lands. In 1983-84, the
ministry of industrial (1) confiscated their lands showing the reason to build garments where the state
going to build Thilawa Special Industrial Zone. From the date of government’s confiscation till
forming Thilawa Industrial Zone could not implement any project. Till 2002, deposit receipts in the
farmer’s hand.
For the land usefarmers(1.5) million for land compensation, A plot of (25’x50’) for each,(2.5)
milliontobuildahouse, (150,000) Ks for the cost of house movement,Socialcompensation(700000) Ks,
For a cow(60,000) Ksrates, were given to the farmers without ownconsentoffarmers, fixed value
forcely and had been moved. Relevantgovernmentgavefarmerswereunhappywiththeircompensation.
On4April2013, saidthe governmenthadtakenthelandoffarmers and attached the caution signboard on
their lands.
Before grabbing the lands, the Deputy Minister U Set Aung(Former National Planning Deputy
Minister supposed), now president of Central Bank of Myanmar arrived and said” this Project is for
country development, the residents of Than Lyin can observe the atentage from this project, the life of
farmers would be develobed and everything would be develobed” promised but nothing was
implemented as his promise , about the economics, livelihood, health, childrens education and
everything of the farmers have been facing with many inconveniences.
No any legal documents were given for the house plot with square feet of (25’x50’) which the
government gave to the Land confiscated farmers. Said as a reason, they did not give any documents
because of fearing of selling. Although demanded frequently from the farmers’ side, not successful.
FinallyThilawaManagementCommitteeJointSecretaryDr Than Than New told the farmers, they could
not give any documents for that plots. As the farmers did not get any documents for that plots from the
government, the farmers have to fear of anytime re-occupying. Now, the farmers are facing with many
problems in their economics, livelihood, health and children educationsaid. Some farmers hocked their
house plots due to intolerance of difficulties, some farmers lost their house plots because they could
not redeem. Some farmers already sold completely, that all happened because of intolerance of
diffifculties.
They expressed they need help for all above difficulties, if anyone help them, they will thank and be
very happy.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 17
HistoryofLandHolding
Intermofthehistoricvillage,Thilawahas been of age 2107years, by acient history. The chairman of
ThilawaSocialDevelopment Organization UMyaHlaingsaid'My grandfather's father hadstarted;
thisvillage,they wereborninthisvillageand they were growedinthisvillage and they died in this village.
This story is the story which is in my sense. If I say the history of Thilawa, at the beginning, Kingdom
of Pa La was built after doing business through the river port of Thilawa. The international Trade was
started from the Thilawa. From that century, this viallge was located. Other villages, Alone Sote,
Palann became after becoming the Pa La Kingdom. Their grand fathers told, these villages were forest,
after clearing all forest, it became farmlands. Total Land (3508) acres, andthetenth(63)
andfarmers(361),
Operatemorethan1,000acresoforchards
by(61)
persons,
Ponds(4).
Till
2012farmerswho had land taxinvoices from (361) farmers, (350) farmers. They had a few Plant/Bank
books.
CASE STUDY– Land ownership in the period of the government Nawata and Nayaka
Daw Sein Myint (59) years old occupied nearly 1 acre in the sum of land confiscation Hacter 2000,
her ownership was from her grandfathers’s father, she had been cultivating in that lands, long
year lasting trees, seasonable cultivation. But due to discrimination of the chairman of the village,
did not get the receipt.
Thilawa
landownership
wassincetheBritishera,
andthesmallscalefarmerscuttheamountofclearedlandtaxassessment. Inthisway, thefarmerslandforgenerationsthey've
gottherighthandstock.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 18
In the year of 1996-97 First time confiscation fromDepartmentof Housing
In 1996-97, general Enn Kyaw(Director of Housing Deparment) said this place will be grabbed by
giving 20 thousands kyats per acre to do the project either the farmers will be satisfied with this
compensation or not. So, the farmers had to accept the amount given. Otherwise they would have to
be called by the car which was waiting with 50 arm forces. The project was titled for Industrial Zone
but grabbed by Housing Department. At that time from 6 or 7 villages, 2000 families of lands were
grabbed. Till now, no any Industrial Zone was done. Without doing any Industrial Zone, the farmers
had to pay the charges of 7 busket paddy for five years as eating fruit. Government fiexd 1 busket
with 46 pounds, the farmers requested to pay as the government fixed but they did not accept, asked
to pay with the price of 52 pounds. For that, given no any receipts. From the department of Housing,
the head of department U Ba Tin used to collect. At that time, as the township administrator and
district administrator were generals of army, when they came, called arm forces. Also General Enn
Kyaw used to call his body gurads from the army. Without informaing, came and done like a
grabbing. After five years, stoped the collecting the carges of eating fruit system. General Aung
Pyae submitted as district greeing, asked the farmers must do, must cultivate, if not followed their
orders, and grabbed the lands. General Aung Pyae was the chairman of south district. In 2004-2005,
general Myint Swe( head of Yangon Division) said, where the free water was reaching from the
Zamani dam, must plant the summer paddy. At that time, no investment was given, had to manage
own investment. The two farmers who could not use their own investment lost their lands and
grabbed. Not grabbed the lands who could use own investment. From that day, started the giving
again of land tax receipts. After grabbing in 96/97, gave back 40x60 square feets for house plot in
return. Did not get all farmers, some farmers got; some farmers did not get due to poor management.
(The chairman of Thilawa Social Development U Mya Hlaing and member U Kyaw Win)
Table: The history of land confiscation for Thilawar Deep Sea Port and Special Economic Zone
In the years of 1996-97cropcompensationper acre(20,000) was given to a family of farmer (no
compensation for land), after giving it, forced them to move to Than Lyin, Aung Chan Thar village.
For various threatening of the government authorities (shown the gun), they had to accept the
compensation even though they did not satisfy because of fearing of their lifes.
In 1995-96, they got 20000 kyats for each acre as damages. These amounts of damages were the total
cost of lands for cultivation and crops. These did not deserve. In those times 40000 or 50000 kyats did
not deserve, but they got only 20000 kyats as their damages. People from Aung Chan Thar Quarter got
(40x60) feet lands. Each people did not get (40x60) feet lands because of mismanagement. Before
lands expropriation, they were not discussed about this. The confederate realty and industry (1)
expropriated (2000) hectare as the reason of Singapore project. They gave permit the native farmers to
redo on their farm and the farmers must gave (7) baskets of paddy for each acre as damages. U Ba
Tint, the chair-person of realty, and the representatives from quarters collected crops. At that time,
farmers put their energy for their growing so they accepted this. In this expropriation,from Generals to
soldiers threatened and included. Native people neglect the chance of grumble. They do not calculate
the damages in the current market price and they term (20000) as they like. After expropriation, the
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 19
project has to start within six months. If it cannot start within the limited period, this expropriated
order must delete. And, they did not delete the order and they land granted to the owners. However, in
the receipts, the owner name is the native farmer till 2012. After 2012, these lands will later
confiscated the second time. In the second time confiscation, except second time confiscation of Than
Lyin, A Lone Sote, Lat Yat San, La Ha Yat village, involved Kyayk Dan, Thida Myaing village, Aye
Mya Thida and Shwe Pyay Thar ward. After announcement of order of confiscation for Kyayk Dan,
Aye Mya Thida and Shwe Pyay Thar Ward, found appointing as the Yangon south district of Land
confiscation adhesiveruleOfficer by state gazette.
With the date of 15-5-2014, OrderNo. (xx/2014), the department of home affairs published as Than
Lyin, Lat Yat Sam village will be grabbed and then in June 3 2014 the glue roll officer sent to the
villagers special notice again.
CASE STUDY– In May 24 2013 published to grab the ward (2) From Kyauk Dan City,
GazetteoftheRepublicissuedStatement
1894
landconfiscationAct,
Section4,
sub-section1ofthefollowingpubliclandsin
ordertouseasThilawaproject,Thilawa Special ManagementCommitteeannouncedthattheywanted.
States
Township
Quarter
No. of Fields/ Names
Registered
/Provinces
Land for
Cultivation
(acres)
Yangon
Kyauk Tan
Aye Mya
609-A (Pha Lam field) 27
256.04
609-A (Pha Lam field) 5
63.34
609-A (Pha Lam field) 5
63.34
ShwePyi Thar
655 ( Thi La Wah
72
554.41
Yar
South Field)
ShwePyi Thar
658 ( Thi La Wah
54
404.17
Yar
South Field
163
1341.3
Thidar
Yangon
Kyauk Tan
Aye Mya
Thidar
Yangon
Kyauk Tan
Aye Mya
Thidar
Yangon
Yangon
Kyauk Tan
Kyauk Tan
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 20
In 2012, after telling from the township administrator, no place to move, no one moved, stayed
continuously. In the meeting of Than Lyin-Kyauk Dan Department of Housing said that after meeting
with the management committee of Yangon Division, U Sat Aung given the compensation of 20000
kyats with the price, they occupied the lands.
The following Land Acquisition by GAD in 25th December 2012
The Administrator from GAD called every one household representative for meeting at the
monastery. He talked of land acquisition. It has been occupied since 1996-97 and given the
compensation, therefore, no more compensation will be offered. But the dwellers must leave the
place as soon as possible _ or they will to follow the legal sue. Since it has been confiscated
1996-97, the people are still receiving the tax receipts. By the law, the local have the right to hold
lands. People responded the Administrator and he also reacted he relayed the message of upper
level _ he would not be responsible for the local disadvantages. On 31st January 2013, the notices
were sticked to give up the residences. There are (950) houses in (2400) ha _ yet no household
gave up. Beginning April 2013, Thilawar Special Economic Zone called subquent and repeated
meetings once a month. Compensation of (25' x 50') area and 2.5 million kyats for construction
was offered. Deputy Planning Minister (believed by natives), U. Set Aung, Yangon Regional
Agricultural Minister, U. Soe Min, the Committee member, Daw. Than Than Thwe called
continuous meetings, made the decisions. In 2013 July meeting, U. Set Aung delivered the
opening speech. 'It was the very first Deep Sea Port and it will bring a lot of benefits; the
compensation will be made by the International Standard and the World Bank Standard,
accordingly.
From the Special Thilawa Industrial Zone U Sat Aung told to get 13 kinds of compensation in the
meeting held on 21st September 2013. As attaching pre-causion letter, from six groups of land grabbed
farmers organized a representative group with 30 respresentatives on February 2013. As the leading
committee member U Mya Hlaing asked questions about the matter of replacement of hill track, farm
land in the meeting held on September 2 2013, after that meeting not allowed the member of
representatives to involve and discuss in the next meeting.
After that Minister U Sat Aung asked help from the chairman of leading committee U Mya Hlaing
coming till to the teashop to persuade and accept the farmers. Therefore, done a meeting with farmers,
said will give 13 kind of compensation. In the meeting held on 2013 September 21, arranged to build
12’x16’ square feet house, plot was 20’x40 square feet with kitchen place, bed room, persons in which
house no room for worship was described the plan from the government. The persons who were no
residents to that village were threatened closely, (grabbed lands, nothing will get) was said and
threatened with intolerance words. In the meeting, about 1000 people attended, all people accepted
except two persons.
The project area is 2400 hacters, hacter 400 is first level, in the project area included 6 villages and
had to move. All had to move from hacter 400, the remaining person U Kyaw Myint, did not move
from his original place because of not getting huts for his cattles, so he was going to be sued under the
Panel section 447. For that case Jica involved not to sue him, U Kyaw Myint was not called yet for the
trial. In December 31 2013 attaching precaution letter, said must move completely within 14 days. As
in form of Jica technical support, for no.1, Support, the compensation of 1 care land 1.5 million, for
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 21
whom who did not get compensation for land crop compensation for six years, as compensation of loss
house plot of 25’x50 square feet, cost for house building 2.5 millions. Support no.2, transportation cost
and support 25 hundred thousand, all together 2.7 million and 50 thousand were give each. In 2014
April 8, published in the weekly journal Unity that for social compensation was given 8 hundred
thousand. Social compensation means, former support for losing the path of income shown in Support
no.2. The house plot of 25’x50 replacement of Myaing Tharya per family cost 4 million to build the
house said the movement suffers. At the beginning given square feet 20’x40’, due to frequent request
of the farmers increased square feet from 20’x40’ to square feet 25’x50’. As the Land Law which was
released in 2012 was very good, in current land confiscation matters not used that law in order to. As
the farmers considered being advantage of the country, were ready to move from their place. But the
farmers applied not to be affected and lost their economics and need to consider said (U Sein Htay
former resident of Alone Sote, now in Myaing Thar Yar, Thilawa).
In all wards have one mayor but not in Mya Yar Yo. Here six villages, in that villages involved in
Alone Sote, other villages are separately. Collected the record of ownership of properties. The group
of collecting ownership collected each. I got 77 hundred and eighty thousands for my all properties
including house plot, farmland and orchard, said a farmer. But actual price is over ten million deserve.
Should get the amount of billion. If they do not give that amount, would be satisfied with the amount
of 50/60 million. Want to tell, this lands became this position with our blood and sweat. As this the
country project, comparing the country we have to understand but this project should help us inversely
as we invested this land. We demand that kind of help but not telling to stop this project. In this
confiscation, involved farmland, some lands are not only one time cultivation butalso two times
cultivatable. In my cultivation, included summer paddy four acres, rain paddy ten acres” expressed (U
Mya Hlaing 45 years age old man from the Thilawa Social Development Committee).
The person, who did not get the land compensation, got the crops compensation. The residents survive
by farming, in the replacement place, cannot do farming of chickens, ducks and pigs.
To implement the Haters 2000, the authorities and residents sat meeting one time in month. For second
level of project, done checking of strategy plan in 2014 June 30 at the department of Housing branch
(2), Than Lyin. The residents of Thilawa asked to release the exact amount of compensation they
would get. The people in Hacters 400 were sent to the place where cannot do farming of chicken and
ducks. So, they applied if they would be sent to that kind of place need to pay farming compensation
who are surviving by farming in the meeting of Thilawa Special Industrial Zone Committee held on
2014 August 25.The water well dug by government is not useable for drinking. Water from the seven
well sent to Health Department and checked in the national health laboratory, the water from all seven
wells found more than 16 bacteria in 100 mililiter, so not deserve to use a drinking water, report
released on 29 July 2014.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 22
How the Land is used after Acquisition
Thilawa economic area of 5787.178 acres (2342 hectors), the interpretation of the first stage (Class A)
978.691 acres (396.062 hactor) are implemented in 2014.
The opening ceremony of Economic Zone held on 30 November 2013, “ although the residents wanted
to see it very much, not allowed the residents to enter inside, they had to peek” answered in Focus
Group’s meeting”, the respondents said. In the Economic Zone, the parcentage of companies are Japan
(49%), China, United States(Ball Asia Pacific), Hong Kong(Textile), Singapore, Companies of
Thailand (53), rented a square meter by (65) dollars.Another (68.4) acres from 12 countries over (40)
companies were proposed.
'President's apparently guidance on the runway, the special Thilawa Special Economic Zone could
reach the destingation and will be well known to the world', said U Win Aung, the chairman of
Thilawa SEZ on 14 August, 2014 Yangon at Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of
Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI).
'One share costs (10000) Kyats with astake in the total shares of (2145000) pieces and water, and the
demands of share is (18) billions much more than the supply,'described in Seven Days News Daily
Press on 2014 March3.
In Thilawa Special Economic Zone, each acre of the land may be (270) millions and the lease will be
public(M-TSH) U Win Aung said at Company's legislation meeting.
'The first step among 400ha, 86.45 acres are used for the estate and business infrastructure,'hesaid.
'The area will be concerned only with the local investors and not with Japanand did not join directly
implemented', he said. 'Designed bythe French Company Egis,so that the investors can reside in, and
therefore, office, school, bank, restaurant, condominium,three stars Hotel, four stars Hotel, five stars
hotels will be constructed there.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 23
Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation
Commission
The investigation commission of public not to be abasing due to farmland and other lands confiscation
of U Tin Htut was sent the letter. Also sent letter to the Parliament by the Member of Parliament U
Khaing Maung Ye. Although consisting in report section (2), nothing special changed, said the
residents. With the help of Member of Parliament U Khaing Ye and U Aung Thein, could be sent
letter to the JICA and Japan Embassy on February 2013. In the report section (2) of National
Parliament written” In Than Lyin and Kyauk Dan, including U Soe Hlaing (18) farmers’ grabbed land
about (180) acres to give land compensation” coordinated after meeting with companies and farmers
from the commission. Also written in the report” getting both side’s agreement, to check and release
the compensation processing were running”.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 24
Land Utilization Management Committees and Land Management
Committees
Case Study – Policy of JICA for resettlement
၄ .၃ က) Need to find out as much as possible all ways of transparency to be less while the
resettlement and lost the way of income appeared.
၄ .၃ ဂ ) Need to give the compensation on time and enough who must move and affected the
economics of their living and losers. As the host country, need to give capacity building, standard
living, and job opportunities for income, level of goods production to be very good or at least to
reach again the situation of before project need to be managed.
၄ .၃ ဃ) Need to give the compensation as much as able for all basic cost of resettlement.
၄ .၃ င ) Need to give compensation and other supports before the process of replacement.
Except the above policy, JICA use the following policies which are drawn in world bank OP 4.12
က) Should collect the basic record during the drawing plan for the project.
ခ ) Benefits and applies requested to use the lands which the they have been doing is if unable to
be recognized as legal land include to move.
ဂ ) Need to give the chance to choose the replacement place as same quality as their original place
who had been using lands for their living.
ဃ) For period of transition (the period of resettlement and livelihood unstable), need to give
support.
Land committee and department of agriculture did not handling that matter.When Share Mercy
contacted and asked about the matter to the chairman of Aung Chan Thar, he told nothing and turned
aside to the upper organization. After forming a management committee of Thilawa Special Industrial
Zone, leading by current vice chairman of central bank U Sat Aung and Yangon Minister of Irrigation
U Soe Min handled the matter to give compensation and resettlement to the residents. As this project
concerning with JICA, need to coordinate with that group to give compensation according to the
policy of JICA.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 25
Technical Support from JICA
1.1 Support for the loss of unmoveable things (house, other
buildings (bufflo, cows, goats,hut) paddy, vegetables, trees
1.2 Support for the loss of moveable things (farming,
agricultural instruments)
2.1 Income from the usage of lands (paddy, vegetables,
farming)
2.2 Income not concerned with the usage of lands (own, paid
employee, daily workers)
3 Support for resettlement (transportation cost,travell cost,
student)၊,support for coordination
Figure 1 The technical support for the replacement from the technical group of JICA
After first time confiscation in 1996/97, now resettled in Myaing Tharyar village. For not getting the
support of cost for cultivation, loan, etc, some farmers sold the house plot of square feet 40’x60’ by
only 10000 or 8000 kyats. Have to live and work in the fields. Became worker as a fruit eater. To
invest the field, had to sell house and cows. As needing to settle the loan once in a year, cannot keep
their children till higher education, only can keep middle school.
In the second time confiscation, the resident of a farmer, U Sein Win said in the discussion with U Sat
Aung and the residents held on September 21, 2013. These farms are like the posterity trees. He
imagines and afraid that a swan it lays a golden egg yearly would be died. A farmer occupies at least
(10) acres. For a seasonable trees, it is enough to wait (45) days, however, for the farm (4) months. So,
if we have this lands, everything about social, economics are ok for us, we do not have this lands, our
life will become like a dead swan without any lands and like a blind man. We made this lands
investing our blood for many years to become as usual soil. Therefore, we demanded the arrangement
as international standard from losing our life.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 26
Role of NGOs and LNGOs
The organizations which are helping in that matters are,ERI (Earth Right International), Pa Day Thar
Moe, Paung Ku, Dry Zone Watch and HRW (Human Right Watch). ERI called the HRW, mainly
Paung Ku. Paung Ku came and studied about the matter in 2013 January. At the first time, Shwe
Mhaw Wan(the local organization which helped to get contact with Paung Ku), then Paung Ku
arrived. The representative of Paung Ku Ko Zaw Lat also helped to get contact with ERI. Paung Ku
helped to get contact with all organizations like Paday Thar, Dri Zone Watch, Human Right, etc.
Paung Ku also helped to get contact with the persons who can send the rules and regulation of JICA
and also supported the travel cost. Still now, Paung Ku is giving help with cash, giving information
and arranged the meeting with scholars, and also called the scholars who can explain the standard of
JICA. Htar Wai, Haling Thar Yar industrial zone, EITI all organizations were called by Paung Ku.
Paday Thar Moe teached the land law. ERI sent to Thailand and Japan. Suffering all cost, done a press
conference. With the support of could sent letter to JICA. Investigated the letter to be right or not.
Taking one month time, studied and done. The investigation was started from June 2 2014. JICA
checked on July 18-19 2014. Report will come out after two months. When the date September(4),
telling the details investigation will be done after two months, extended the times two months more.
Told the report will be come out on November first, second and third week but still now no
information has known about the report.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 27
Post-resolution Updates
Lessons from the original income returning
1- Need support to give both physically and mentally. The resttlers always will be remembering
their original place.
Need to give support.
U Mya Hlaing, Chairman of Thilawa social development committee`demanding the permission to
settle nearby villages like Kyauk Dat and Aye Mya Thida, U Sat Aung (Leading Committee) rejected
and said not possible to let and settle neary by new plots because of having owner of the plots. The
new nearby plot of current price with the square feet (40’x60’) is from the (70) million to (150)
million. This resettlement is (8) miles far away from the Alone Sote village, and difficulty place. No
local bus. In the field of Myaing Thar Yar (3), Kyauk Dan, house plot square feet (25’x50’) no kitchen
place, no curtain, no space in the backside, no toilet hole. As being square feet (25’x50’), toilet is
veryclose from the house, may cause health problems, no path for releasing sewage. Accepted this
project but need the future development of residents affected by the project. We demanded which is
not less than original situation like giving jobs to youths, to release investment for the girls, to put
share in the business for the families. Now have to live under the hot weather, lived before under the
shade happily and peace fully.
And then U Kyaw Win from the Alone Sote Village said, “ project means development of damaged
life but we need to come out from the house to the road because of over hot, arrived in the dog place,
is that project?, actual saying, our government is very shameless”.
U Kyaw Win has two milky cows, two working ox, two kettles, for keeping them in the given plot of
square feet(25’x50) is not space enough, so U Kyaw Win did not move from his original place, as not
moving from his place, prepared he was to be sued under the penal section 477. The chairman of
Alone Sote prepared on 26 September 2014 to U Kyaw Win, his wife Ma Thida(28 years old) and his
son Aung Paing (18 years old), after the consisting of JICA, did not need to go to court.
In Hector (400) all families are from Alone Sote and Thilawa village, had been working as labor.
Now, no opportunity for job. While grabbing the land, promised would get job in the project again and
would issue the labor card.
“I applied six times, even not appointed me as daily worker”said the resettler U Hla Win. All the
resettlers about (68) families had been worked cultivation and labor. At that time got (3500) kyat per
day. From the place of given resettlement to the Jetty will cost the motor bike charges about (3000).
`Not getting any job opportunities, (8) families sold the given house, (6) families hocked.(U Mya
Hlaing, Chairman of Thilawa social development committee)
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 28
For the inconvenience of drinking water, have to buy. (68) families had to stop about (15) students
from the education because of inability the travel cost for their children. In the other hand, being (8)
miles far away from their former place.
From the Thilawa Special Industrial Zone project management committee, joint secretary Daw Than
Than Thwe said” dug well, for job opportunities opened the car training, sewing training. Although in
Hector (400) given compensation as world standard, house plot with square feet (25’x50’), (25)
hundreds thousands for house building cost, social compensation (8) hundred thousand. In the area of
hector (2000), remained (760) acres to give the compensation.
In hector (400), the suffer of the resettlement U Kyaw Win said, he had (10)dug wells, damaged 8, if
any fire burn happen no entry for the fire killing cars due to narrow path. Although giving the training,
he has difficulties for food during training period.
What the residents will do in the future
Fixed (4) levels
1- Discussion
2- Coordination
3- Advice
4- Collaboration, if do not care our advice, will complain till Jica.
Due to not happening as the farmers required from level 1, 2, 3, in April 2014, the residents of Thilawa
asked an appointment with Jica, from the beginning of October 2013, tried five times but not got any
appointment with Jica. Therefore, the three Thilawa residents of resettlers sent a complaint letter about
the investment of Jica to the head office of Jica located in Tokyo, Japan. After that an investigation
committee arrived and investigated. Meanwhile, the government of Myanmar dug the lakes and
grooves.
On the other hand, the tasks of land adjustment in Hacter (400) did nearly 100%. To supply the
electricity, water and to make roads in the project area, the basic related camps will be built very soon.
To supply the water, Zamany Dam made agreement with the department of Irrigation. For electricity,
agreed with the department of electricity Than Lyin to supply electricity from the Than Lyin branch
electricity mill, as said by a member of project management published in a daily eleven newspaper on
April 22 2014. In additional for electricity of Thilawa special Industrial Zone, 33 KV will be
implemented with the international loan said the deputy minister of Department of electricity U San
Oo. The state purpose of the project, in the land of public owner of traditional, generations were doing,
Thilawa industrial zone will be hired by (270) million per acre, to get the water the Zarmany Dam will
do, for electricity 33KV will be supplied line, for roads from the department of housing will do
intended, leaving the farmers the native land to the new place, does not deserve for this opportunity,
appeared many thoughts and questions.
Instead of a square feet (25’x50’), square feet (40’x60’) house plot, cost of house building (10)million,
social compensation and transportation cost of movement, meal cost during giving training period,
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 29
farming extra place for farming who do the farming, ( a farmer name U Kyaw Win was doing cows
farming in his land before, in the place of resettlement no arrangement for his farming, so he did not
move and refused to move), should not create the situation not less than the standard of supplying
water, electricity and roads in project area? If the project is doing for the development of public, the
residents and poor should get the first priority. If this project will not be for the development of
Koroni.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 30
Figure 2Thilawar Project Map
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 31
Figure 3Media Press about Thilawar Project
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 32
Figure 4Thilawar Economic Zone Opening Ceremony -1
Figure 5Janpanese Press on Thilawar Project Resettlement (Housing, Water, Sanitation etc.)
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 33
Figure 6Report of Department of Health _ One Water Quality Examination tested the bore well provided by the Relocation
Committee
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 34
Ayashwewah Company's Deep Water Paddy Farm, Fish Pond
and Fisheries Project
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 35
Ayashwewah Company's Deep-water Paddy Farm, Fish Pond, and Fisheries
Project
Part I: Company Initiation and Operation
In early 1998, Thura U Shwe Man (today’s Parliament speaker) took office as Commander and
Chairman of the Divisional Peace and Development Council (Southwest Command). At that time, U
Htor Pa Lor Hpor was a well-known fishery lessee. The Commander assigned him to cooperate with a
businessman called U Te Za to start a venture for deep-water paddy, fish farming, and pond fishery.
The Commander established together with U Te Za the Ayarshwewah Company in the Darka
Administrative Unit, Kangyidaung Township.
Lands (ina circular shape) in the Pathein District includingYegyi, Tharboung, Kyaunggon, and
Kangyidaunt Townships, were seized as part of this project for business purposes (no exception for
fallow lands, natural fish ponds, and pastureland). Vast land-plots that have been rented out to farmers
for the past 18 - 20 years have been seized. The collectors included people such as the clerk of the
VTPDC or Officers in the Troop.
One day,the Village Tract Chairman and other leaders arrived and told the Tharboung and Kyaunggon
residents: “You can no longer access these plots, they are Ayarshwewah premises now.” With this, the
land acquisition was complete, and farmers that had been using the land before this day, lost not only
their daily bread but also their livelihood security.
In Kangyidaunt's Darka Administrative Unit, the VTPDC went door to door and paid 30.000 kyats of
compensation to the affected farmers. Theseized farmlands were not meant for deep-water paddy
farming but for future prospects of higer price gain. They were confiscated from the farmers and
applied for registration as rice-mill, bio-fertilizer, offices, staff barracks, and fishponds. Some farmers
refused to accept the money, however, they still had the lease their holding right. In one instance, the
headmaster of thelocal school was feeling insecure about his farmland, which was bordering with the
company’s compound. He received frequent visits from the authorities and when they requested to buy
his land in order to incorporate it into the company’s compound, he succumber because of fear that if
he didn’t sell it, it would be grabbed by force.
Before the commencement of the operation (and land confiscation), the Commander and his assigned
partners have well-prepared; they appointed employees and other members of the delegations, such as
the Township-in-charge, Admininstrative-in-charge for managing three to five village tracts, and big
paddy growers (or groupings of neighbors and relatives) able to manage 50-200 acrable lands by
themselves (with their families) to take responsibility of the Plot-in-charge. Only after these
formations were madewas land acquisition initiated.
The Chairman of the Ayarshwewah Company is U Te Za, Vice Chairman is U Aung Thet Man, and
the Director is U Htor Pa Lor Hpor (a pond fishery expert). U Htor Pa Lor Hpor appointed his
follower, U Maung Maung, giving him the General Manager Post. As for other staff members, U Saw
Peter was appointed Project Manager, U Myint Sein Legal Consultant, and others positions, such as
Field Clerk, Office Clerk, Geoinformatics Clerk, were also appointed. For the project implementation
there were appointed: Township in-charge, Administrative Unit, and Fifty Unit Plot in-charge. Some
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 36
original farmers got the chance to continue growing under the company's management; others did not.
Some Plot-in-charge was managed by one farmer, some by two or three growers. The majority of the
farmers handed over their own lands and later attempted to get back the land access rights from the
company. Some, who owned more than thirty acres and handed them over to the company, have
received the right of fisery lessee.
The Plots-in-charge were provided with power-tillers and pumping machines on credit. The rice
growers were also provided with loans, seeds, two gallons of diesel, two sacks of fertilizer, all on
credit via Plot-in-charge. When the yield was due, farmers had to pay five baskets of paddy as land
rental. For the remaining debts they had to pay in instalments by cash or by paddy. Farmers who were
not able to pay the instalment were sentenced to jail. Because of that there is now a saying: 'Thanks to
the Ayarshwewah the jail has to be expanded'. All in all, the deep-water paddy farm project has not
succeeded (the company closed down after 2 years), nor did the farmers paid their debts.
The Ayarshwewah project has established deep-water farms, fish ponds, and fishery auction pondson
41200 acres in total on paper, but in reality 41905.5 acres, and among those there were: arable
farmland 35886.64 acres, fishery auction pond 4813.36acres, and fish ponds 1205.50 acres. All of
these were officially returned on 26 July 2012 with the signature of Chairman U Te Za (see Figure 8
and 9).
When Senior General Than Shwe and his party visited the grounds by helicopter, people’s hopes rose
and the farmers were full of expections that they would be supported and their lives would change
singnificantly. However, all the farmers were degraded from land lessees down to landles and had to
keep paying five baskets of paddy as rental fee for each acre. If a farmer could not pay the paddy, he
would be sued and arrested.
The company operated for 2 years and then closed down. Not only the company, but also the
Township-in-charge, Adminstrative Unit, and Plot-in-charge gained profit from this operation. After
the company liquidation, the in-charges attempted to get landholder rights. First, the lands were
confiscated from the original farmers, then the in-chargesworked on it and even sold some parts to
other parties. And so the latest land access moved to the third party, step-by-step.
In 2012, the Union Parliament was commissioned for the Land and Land Related Disputes
Investigation. They found that while Ayarshwewah returned all the lands (with no exceptions for deepwater paddy farms, natural fishery ponds, and dug fish ponds), the current lessees were the ones trying
to get landholder rights with the assistance of the VTLMC.
Another commission (regional level) paid a few visits to see the VTLMC, TLMC, and the orginal
farmers and assured farmlands would be returned to the original farmers, and if something went wrong
it would be their responsibity. Despite this notification, the original farmers received only less than
half of their acreages.
For instance, someone who had formerly ten acres of land, was able to provideall land-tax receipts,
and attempted to re-occupy the lands, resulted in the recipt of three acres of farmland at most. This
created a landholder right competition among the tripartite of the primitive farmers, the follow lessees,
and the current lessees. The court sessions were rulednot by Civil Acts but Criminal Acts.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 37
Therefore, the residents saw the VTLMC and TLMC as playing tricks: the farmer who has been
growing for the last five consecutive years has not been officialized as the owner, not had the land
been given out to the original farmer. “The short investment of Ayarshwewah in the region turned the
localsinto land-losers,” said one social development worker from Darka.
The land return excluded farmlands in Darka, worth hundreds of lakhs for an acre. In the process of
land acquisition, 30.000 kyats had been paid in the name of land clearance; followed a payment of
250.000 kyats in the name of 'compassion tip'. Some farmlands changed the type of 'the right to
access the farmland' according to the Farmland Nationalization Act of 1953, and built rice mills, biofertilizer plants, dug fish ponds, offices, and staff barracks on the same ground. Unchanged farmlands
were on trial for farmland registration by U Thein Lin Soe, identified as the son of U Shwe Man (in
reality he is the nephew of U Shwe Man), living in Mayangon Township, Yangon Region. Original
farmers objected to this, and therefore, he continued his trial with the title of son of U Thein in
December 2014.
Upom liquidation of the company's property, the premises were shared among U Shwe Man and his
partners.
They continued a similar business using the company's brand name. In addition, U Thein Lin Soe
established together with other businessmen the 'Shwe Kan Thar' Company, whichran trade with
'paddy, and related crops' and received concessions. U Shwe Man and his relatives also owned many
petrol stations named 'Terminal' and 'Ayarshwewah' in Hlainetharyar, Nyaungdon, and other
townships nearby, and owned the bus line named 'Elite'.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 38
Figure 7:The area of deep-water paddy farms, dug fish ponds, and fishery auction ponds developed
byAyarshwewah.
ဧဧဧဧဧဧဧဧ
ဧဧဧဧဧဧဧဧဧဧ
(ဧဧဧဧ)၊
ဧဧဧဧဧ
ဧဧဧဧဧဧ ဧဧဧဧ
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 39
Figure 8: Testimony of Land Return by Ayarshwewah -1
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 40
Figure 9: Testimony of Land Return by Ayarshwewah -2
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 41
Figure 10:Terminal Petrol Station and 'Elite' bus garage owned by U Shwe Man and his family in
Hlainetharyar
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 42
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 43
Part II
Ayarshwewah and Yegyi Township Farmers
In Ayarwaddy, during the era of the government’s exercise of the so-called 'Twenty Articles Order' on
Farmers, they had to sell a specified amount of baskets of paddy to the State through the Ministry of
Commerce. Farmers were not able to grow paddy excessively, nor were they able to keep exceeding
(15) baskets for their household consumption. Even seed storing as a backup was not favoured. All
the remainders had to be sold to the state. As a result, farmers abandoned farmlands changed
professions. Ayarshwewah took advantage of this chaos and every single plot lying in the circle of the
Ayarshwewah setup area was confiscated.
In spite of mass land concessions, the company worked for only two years. Farmers had to pay five
baskets of paddy for every acre of land through the in-charges. A number of cases of violations
occurred. Due to the input and operational costs, as well as lesser yields by year, it had not succeeded.
Many farmers, who could not afford to pay the instalments, were arrested and sentenced in Yegyi.
Farmers could no longer work, nor could they pay their debts back. Only people who were close to
Ayarshwewah continued growing. When lands were being returned, only those who were working on
the farmlands got them, not the original farmers.
On 26 July 2012, the Ayarshwewah Company was liquidated and the lands returned (signed by U Te
Za). Subsequently, farmers requested land user rights back. There weresixty to seventy land
requests.In most cases, the in-charges, who were close to the company, got the lands.
Sources: U Kyaw Kway, Chairman of National League of Democracy from Yegyi, Village Tract
Chairman of NLD, Ywar Ye Tight Village, Kanaar Tight Village Tract
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 44
Part III Ayarshwewah and Darka Administrative Unit, Kangyidaunt
Township
In 1998-99, under Thura U Shwe Man in office, farmlands belonging to U San Myint and U Ohn
Shwe were seized without any compensation. After the construction of offices for the project, 30.000
kyats were paid for farmland establishment. Two farmers refused to receive the payment. Farmland
seizure of other farmers’ lands with followed no exception. The commission aimed with gun at the
father of Ms. Swe Swe Aung of Seikthar in order to release the farmland. Most farmers were afraid
and took the land clearance fee. To those, who did not, the Hundred Household Administrator came to
pay it in person at their door. On the envelop, there was an'A' representing Ayarshwewah. In some
cases, the TPDC Chairman mediated for the receipt of the payment. The Village Tract Chairman
deducted 3.000 kyats for himself. Those farmers, who refused to sell their farms, were threatened by
TPDC. He said all the farms belonged to the State and thus could be grabbed at any time.
In the beginning, Ayarshwewah rented the farms to its staff members for agriculture purposes. Later,
the Company built fish ponds and rice mills. Eventhe niece of the Commander built a sawmill,
inventory, barracks, and an office. Some farmlands were left vacant.
Ayarshwewah also operated a bio-fertilizer mill. For the materials, it chopped down the tree branches
in the area, collected leaves and mixedthem with aches. Within three years of operation farmers were
in deep poverty. The mill is not operating anymore. Thanks to the technological assistance of Dr.
Nyunt Pe (microbes added into the fertilizer), ina three-year time, the lands should recover from the
damage of chemicals and soil acidity.
A part of the farmland confiscated from U San Myint was said toapply for hospital plot; the remaining
half for fire brigade. Because the locals objected the building of a the petrol station, it was cancelled.
Three rice millers, one businessman, and the nephew of U Shwe Man, founded together a company
called 'Shwe Kan Thar'. They built a pulse purification plant, paddy seeds drying machine, and an
office buildingon the confiscated farmland.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 45
Part IV Ayarshwewah and Seik Thar,
Payachaung Village Tracts in Kangyidaunt
Nyaung
Chaung
and
During the eras of former SLORC and SPDC, one had to apply for the land user right once a year
through the 10 Households and 100 Households Administrators. Regular rice growers generally got
the right to access farms.
Since the Mandalay canal contstruction in 1996, this area faced floods and water overflow. As a result,
monsoon crops had not grown and the farmers became very poor. To respond to this, they changed to
summer paddy. The Land Utilization Committee asked for paddy as land lease before harvesting.
Summer paddy growers were in a difficult situation, they had to paying with paddy loaned from the
neighbourhood with one half or sometimes even one full basket as interest rate for each loaned basket.
Ayarshwewah came with a proposal to establish farmlands on the vacant and virgin lands in Seik Thar,
Nyaung Chaung, Paya Chaung, and Kyu Dar Village Tracts in Kangyidaunt Township. In reality,
these were farmlands that were rented out to farmers who paid taxes.
Farmers had to abandon their farms barehanded because on behalf of the company came armed Capt.
Mya Nyunt from No. 6 Administrative Infantry, the Village Tract Chairman U Tint Lwin along wih
other government officials, as well as the company’s Project Manager in-charge for the SeiktharNyaung Chaung-Payachaung Administrative Unit U Aye Kyaw,and grabbed the land user right with
force. They measured up the lands and erected the Ayarshwewah banner.
Although the farmers had the tax slips from the past, the following slips reached regulary Chairman U
Kyin Ohn; the names of lessees had not been changed. When questioned about who was paying the
tax, the answer was that the slips were released but no one needed to pay. The farmers had bankbooks
for agri-loansand were receiving the loans until the date of the land acquisition. There was no
compensation or farm relocation for the farmers. One farmer who refused to leave had been hit. Land
acquisition was achieved by military and executive power.
In Kangyidaunt, the plot-in-charges were migrants from Kyaunggon and Pathein areas. It was rare for
original lessees to get a continuation of grower rights. Those, who were able to operate one to two
years, at most, shifted the right to people close to them. The second generation was able to grow for
another one to two years, and beginning from 2002, they called for resale. All the plots remained in
the name of Ayarshwewah, users handed land over one after another. Capt. Mya Nyunt from
Administrative No. 6 Infantry, himself, sold out, and farmers, who could pay the debts of the existing
growers,got the land lessee rights.
Source: U Four Six One (23 arable lands) in Payachaung Village Tract, U Moe Myint Soe (xx arable
lands) and Daw. Htwe Htwe Aye (10 acres)
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 46
Part V
Ayarshwewah and Tharboung Township
In Thabyay Kyun and Kyar Ye Village Tract in Tharboung Township there were low-ground farms
that had no tracks and gutters and were cleared by forefathers growing sunflowers and peanuts. They
had been responsible for selling the yields through years of 'Rice Commerence Held by the State'. The
farms had been obtained with aproper application and the Map 105. They shifted the lessee rights
down from generation to generation. In the stated era, they had to sell two baskets of sunflower yields
per acre. The farmer could not meet his requirement and abandonded the farms, which then became
'Fallowland'.
The deep-water farm joint venture, initiated between Aung Thet Man, the son of U Shwe Man, and U
Htor Pa Lor Hpor in 1998-99, tookthe user right and access to the circular track in the target area of
Yegyi, Tharboung, Kyaunggon and Kangyidaunt in Pathein District. Farmers, who did farming for 18
to 20 years, had lost their farms. Some farming families aggregated their farmlands together in order to
meet the criteria of the company – at least 50 acres per client, and entered into cliental relationship
with the company. Later, when they were in debts, they paid them by exchanging their farms for the
outstanding depts..
In 1999,in Tharboung, U Win Tin, the Office Clerk of the Village Tract Administration, invoked the
Land Acquisition. He, himself, worked for the Company as the plot-in-charge. 291 acreages
belonging to 14 farmers in the Byay Kyun Village Tract were occupied without any compensation,
compassion tip, or the growing right as a client of the company. 'Knowingly the company and project
belongs to Thura U Shwe Man, no one dared to argue with the responsible bodies,' said U Tin Soe. He
continues, 'How they confiscated? They came and erected their banner; no one dared question them;
this is how the land concession had been accomplished!'Before and during the land concession, the
locals were not informed and ther participation in the process was not welcome.
After appointing the plot-in-charges, some farmers were approved to continue working on the land
with a cliental status whilst others were not. Some Plot-in-charges worked alone whileothers joined
forces with three to five other families. All in all, farmers handed their farms to the company, and
attempted to get the cliental right under the company. Farmers, who worked for the company and
owned more than 30 acres of farms, were given by a Special provision for farmers and rice growers
the right to compete in the fishery auction. U Myo Min Tun, Member of the Land Disputes Resolving
Support Group (Ayarwaddy Region) representing Pathein District (previously Administrative Unit incharge for managing three to five Village Tracts),granted the right for establishing four natural fishing
ponds.
Farmers, native of Kyor Dan Gyi Village, Kyar Ye Village Tract, and Tharboung Township, could
grow four to five acres of farms;mainly sunflower and pulses. They received a loan of 2000 to 4000
kyats, depending on the size of their farms. 'When Ayarshwewah came in, the farmers handed their
farms to the company (without any contract)expecting to participate in the upcoming process,'
commented a Tharboung Member of Regional Parliament. He continues, 'there were great
expectations, but the Site-in-charges and other upper level in-charges grasped the opportunity that
arose and the majority of the rights were gained by them.'
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 47
In the beginning, the locals asked U Win Tin for grower rights, but did not succeed due to little
acreages and growing oil related pulses. Out of 291 grabbed acres, the Plot-in-charge U Win Tinused
132 for agriculture and leased the remainders to his relatives. Other Plot-in-charges permitted some
migrants from the Bago Region to obtain cliental rights on the new developed vacant, fallow or virgin
lands. 'The way I got the cliental right was that I released all my farms to the company, and then
requested the grower rights and paid the yields on rental. From the time of enrolment, tax slips did not
come in my name, nor could pay the land tax. It was none other than abandoning my own farms to
company's property,' said U Tin Soe (32 acre, Tha Byay Kyun Village Tract, Tharboung Township).
'I cooperated with my brother Ahpyin, who was the Plot-in-charge of my farms. I got two sachets of
fertilizer and two gallons of diesel. Having seven acreages, I imagined I would get seven sachets and
seven gallons or even fourteen sachets and fourteen gallons of fertilizer and diesel. I engaged in query
with no result. My brother received one iron-buffalo, but since I was a lower level grower I did not
get any. Upon the harvest, I had to pay five baskets of yields per acre and give instalments for the
fertilizer and diesel. This situation lasted two years. After that, no more loans were granted.
Therefore, I asked Aapin to help me find some other financial sources. In the end I had to pay ten
percent of interest per month,' complains U Myint Aung (7 acre, Tha Byay Kyun Village, Tharboung
Township).
Currebtly, these farmers in the said area, who lost their lands, are landless and work under the Plotincharge for 45,000 kyats per month.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 48
Part VI
Ayarshwewah and Kyaunggon Township
Daw Sie and her sister sold their farms to their relatives for small amounts of money for food before
1988. U Than Win obtained farms as a wedding gift from his father-in-law, who established them.
Farmers in Kyaunggon, the same as in Tharboung, had very few acres of farmland each.
In 1998, the Village Tract Chairman and other authorities came and said to U Than Win: 'You cannot
do farming anymore, as it your land is within the boundary of Ayarshwewah, and it is Ayarshwewah
that owns the land now.' He pretended not to hear that and continued with his work, wild grass
clearing. The next time this group came to his farm it was accompanied by the Maj. Tin Win Aung, U
Aye Kyaw, and U Than Shwe. Upon seeing the military officer, fear dwelled in and with no more
arguments U Than Win abandoned his farms and started a new life as a labourer in farms belonging to
his father-in-law.
Also the farms of Daw Sie had to be given up to the ex-chairman of the village tract administration,
because they were within the boundaries of his land. Fortunately, Daw Sie had also some in-land
farms and she could work and live there.
The villagerswere not able to fight the higher authorities and hence they gave up their farms.
Source: Daw Sie (Aged 60, 2 acres of farms) and U Than Win (Aged 60, 5 acres of farms)
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 49
History of Land Holding
Among the farmers, whose farmlands have been grabbed, are the Yegyu farmers who have started
their agricultural livelihoodsinthe age of Anti-fascit and People's Independence. In the early decades,
they had to apply for a land lease through the Ten and Hundred Household Admistrators with official
letters. Anyone who did agriculture knew about this procedure and farmers got this way access to the
lands for generations. Farms in that region were low (deep-water) lands, and mostly grew sunflower
and paddy.
Farms in Darka and Kangyidaunt that lie on the roadside of the Yangon-Pathein Highway were
registered in the Land Record Department. Users paid taxes since the time of their forefathers and the
lands were aged farms titled 'R1' and 'R2'.
“After 1988, farmers are not really able to do farming anymore. Farms have to be registered and
irrigation taxes paid,” said U Kyaw Khway, the Township NLD Chairman of Yegyi.
Since the age of the Myanmar Socialist Mission until the SLORC and SPDC era, farmers in the
Ayarwaddy region farmers were not doing well and each household could only grow a few acreages.
Generally, farmers had to sell 12 baskets of yield for each acreage and in some areas of the
Ayarwaddy, they had to set up to 25 baskets of crops: eight baskets to the Military Welfare, two
baskets to the Police Welfare, two for the Government Servants, and one for User's Responsibility. If
farmers failed to do this, the Village Tract Chairman (VTC) searched the whole yard, from barn to silo
for paddy and if it did not please him what he found,the land lease was granted to someone else. Such
a farmland confiscation by the VTC was very common in Labutta and nearby districts. Looking back
at the 1962 Land Lease Act, it stipulated the creation of a list of people who wanted to grow rice from
the poorest to the richest, from the natives and migrants, from the highest capcity to the least capacity,
and from the highest land needs to lowest land needs, and selection was supposed to be made
transparently according to these checklists. The authority failed to follow this.Yegyi, Tharboung, and
Kyuanggon Townships had a lot of fallow lands due to not meeting the given rules by many farmers.
According to the 1963 law, granting land was done once a year by the Village Land Committee.
Designated land tax invoices were released once a year, and grain was to be regularly sold. Farmland
was treated as the 'R1' and 'R2' type; invaded pasture or virgin land growing was treated as the 'N' type
and collected land tax invoices.
Those who were granted lands had the rights and responsiblities given in the 1963 Land Grant Law
and the 1963 Farmers' Rights Protection Act.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 50
Figure 11: 1963 Land Grant Law and 1963 Farmers' Rights Protection Act
Rights
• Except paddy, debts that owed the State and
inheritance disputs,
• Should not Farms, cattle, bull and kind of
equipment, Crop be warranted
• Should the farmers not prevented changing or
moving or selling or liquidating these materials
• Should not prevent a big sell
Should they not stop go down the field
• These issues can not be reasons to detain farmers
Responsiblities
• Land shall not be sold, morgaged, leased, lent,
exchanged, transfered, sub-divided
• Land shal not be left vacant without any proper
reason
• Designated crop (paddy) cultivation shall not be
changed
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 51
How the Land is Acquisited
Before the Farmland Law has been released in 2012, the 1984Act and theLand Acquisition and Land
Acquisition Procedures from 1932 were in place.However, by the experiences of Share Mercy and its
partners, none of the land confiscation in the area of Yangon and the Ayarwaddy Region had been in
accordance with the law during the era of SLORC and SPDC junta.
Only in 1992-93,a rare reference written byU Kyaw (Aung Myat Kyaw), a retired Government
Servant, was found in the book of 'Land Confiscation Laws, Procedures and Vacant, Fallow and
Virgin Lands Management Laws'. It was about the land acquisition in the East Pathein Township (now
Kangyidaunt), in which the No. 10Electrical and Engineering Infantryopened the case (Case No. 15/11
/ 1992-93), and gave information about compensationsand the relocation of the land user.
Figure 12: Selected Clauses of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 52
Chapter 2:
Acquisition
• 4 (2) No person shall enter any building or any enclosed court or
garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless with the consent of
the occupier thereof) without previously giving the occupier a
seven days notice in writing.
• 6 (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the
government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made
under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is
needed for apublic purpose or for a company, a declaration shall
be made to that effect ...
• 6 (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette.
• 9 (1) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the
land is needed for a public purpose or for a company as the case
may be; and after making such a declaration the govemment may
acquire the land in a manner hereinafter appearing.
• 9 (2) The notice shall state the particular of the lands needed, and
shall require all persons interested in the land to appear
personnaly or by agent before the Collector at a time and place
therein mentioned (the time not being earlier than fineen days
after the date of publication of the notice).
• 11 The Collector shall proceed to enquire the respective interests
of the Wrong claiming the: compenstion and shall make an
award under his hand of;• (i) the actual area of the land;
• (ii) the compensation that in his opinion should be allowed for
the land; and
• (iii) the apportionmentoftllesaid compensation among all the
persons known orbelievedto beinterested in the land.
Chapter 3:
Reference
To
Court
And
Procedure
Thereon
• 18 (1) (I) Any interested person that has not accepted the
award may require by written application to the Collector that
the matter may for determination be referred of the court.
• 23 (1) the court shall take into consideration the market-value
of the land at the date of the publication of the notification;
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested;
thirdly, the damage by reason of severing such land from his
other land; fourthly, the damage by reason of the acquisition
injuriously affecting his other property, movable or
immovable; fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the
land; sixthly, the bonafide damage resulting from diminution
of the profits of the land.
• 23 (2) The court shall award in every case a sum of fifteen
percent on the market-value.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 53
In 1998-99, the Ayarshwewah Company was established to develop vacant, virgin and fallow lands
into flooded farmlands in the areas of Yegyi, Tharboung, Kyaunggon and Kangyidaunt in the Pathein
District. All the land (flooded or double cropped farmlands accessed by farmers, pastureland, State
owned and bidding natural fishery ponds), thatfell into the circle, were occupied. Decisions on
operation implementation of the farmers were made beforehand in their own way.
'How the Ayarshwewah had occupied was unknown, but when farmers got down to their farms with
the tiller, they knew that it had been occupied; ithad been pre-occupied without any compensation
scheme; even yearly grown farmlands were also occupied', said U Kyaw Khway (Township Chairman,
National League for Democracy).
Retired highschool Headmaster USan Myint(66years old), said: “I had 3acres of farm. When theroad
was built, farms split to two plots:2,544and0,456acres. In 1998-99,the Ayarshwewah accessed to his
and U Ohn's farmsto build an office without notifying, discussing, or consulting it with the
landholders. Only after the office had been built, they came with 10.000 kyats as compensation. We
didnot accept itas there was nolegalrighttosellthe farm. However, they still occupied the farms
accessed by the farmers next to me and gave out 30.000 Kyats as compensation. Some farmers
received it and some did not. Those, who refused to accept the compensation, were followed home by
the Hundred Household Administrator U Myint Tunto pay it.
“The father of Daw Swe Swe Aung had been pointed with a gun in order to drop his land hold. With
no preceding information, discussion, or anything. They only said tat they had finished land
occupationand whether the money would be accepted or not did not matter much, because the decision
on the land concession would not be changed. And so, some farmers took the money. In some
instances, the Township Administrator, himself,askedthe farmers to sell their farmland to the
company. When they refused to sell, the Administrator said the lands would be grabbed anyway.
Farmers insisted upon the agreement of concession with the signature of the Administrator; he, who
feared the authorities, received an envelope with 30.000 kyats”, said U San Myint (66-year-old, exHeadmaster).
The remaining farms of U San Myint were next to the pathway, where U Shwe Mann established his
firm and hence, the management of the company tried to purchase the farms from him.
Conccernedwith his social security he sold it for 200.000 kyats (while other farmers received only
30.000 kyats).
UFour Six One (Payachaung Village Tract, 23 acres) describes the way the company did land
concession in the rest of the Kangyidaunt area as follows: “We attempted continual farming selling out
and mortgaging every property _ Ayarshwewah, at 1998-99 occupied them in the names of fallow
lands. Of course not, we did not return nor leave vacant. The company did not pay me anything for
my 23 acres.” He continues: “In fact, Ayarshwewah, occupied farmlands that belonged to farmers who
paid land tax regularly. These farms were located in Seikthar, Nyaung Chaung, Kangyidaung
Townships, Payachaung and Kyu Dar Village Tracts. The company wanted to establish farmlands out
of Vacant, Virgin and Fallow lands.”
Many peasants abandoned and left their farms to the company. As for the company, Capt. Mya
Nyaunt from Supervisory Infantry No. 6 came fully-equipped together with the Village Tract
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 54
Chairman U Tint Lwin and other authorities, and with U Aye Kyaw, the nominee for Plot-in-charge,
and grabbed the lands. They didn’t even bother tell the farmers that the land had been grabber, they
just erected the Ayarshwewah banner. And when they were asked, they said they grabbed the land
because the farmer weren’t doing their job properly. Indeed, the tax slips and the tax invoices
continued to be released in our names until 2012.”
The farmers had bankbooks for getting loans and were getting them during the time the lands were
being confiscated. But had no choice but to leave. Those, who stayed, had been hit. There were no
talks about compensation and relocation.
U Than Win (aged 55), who owned 5 acres of farmland in Kyaunggon, remembers: The Village Tract
Chairman and other authorities came by and said we could no longer do business here because the
lands belonged to Ayarshwewah.We pretended not to hear and focused on clearing the bushes. The
next time the chairman came by,he was accompanied by U Aye Kyaw and U Than Shwe. Seeing the
military uniformall the farmers sealed their lips and abandoned the farms.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 55
How the Land is usedafter Acquisition
The natives of Darka said the company granted in the beginning to its employees access to the digging
fish ponds, building rice mills, warehouses, barracks for staff, office buildings, as well as some of the
vacant land (except for the ones accessed by the niece of U Shwe Mann in the saw mill project).
The company also ran bio-fertilizer plants and gathered materials for it (branches and leaves of trees)
in the surroundings.
Site leaders in Kangyidaunt were from Kyaunggon and Pathein. The original farmers were not
permitted to become lessees. The site leaders, after doing business one or two years and unable to
continue, transferred the land holding right to other people who worked on itfor another one to two
years before selling it to someone else in 2012. All the plots remained in the name of the
Ayarshwewah, but successors had changed. Capt. Mya Nyunt from No. 6 Infantry, who undertook
land concessions, also sold lands – he called all applicants who were interested and those who could,
wouldget lessee rights.
CASE STUDY1-Myo Min Tun, Executive Member of Land Disputes Support Group and Former
Administrative Unit-in-charge, Ayarshwewah
Myo Min Tun, owning (xxx) acres of lands, derived from rich farming families. When
Ayarshwewah came it, he got the position of taking hold of three Administrative Unit in-charge
for developing Vacant, Fallow and Virgin lands. In Shaw Pyar Kone Village Tract, Tharboung
Township, he established farmlands from (400) acres of pastureland, (761) acres of Fallow and
Virgin lands, (300) acres of Pastureland and (532) acres of Virgin Land, altogether (1293) acres.
In return, he received four auction ponds for fisheries. In 2010, Company was liquidated and
released down all the farmlands, he took hold (50) acres and gave the rest to the original farmers
who had had tax slips and negotiated between the farmers and authorities. Now, these farmers
had temporary holder right Form (3).
Kyaunggon residentssaidthe site-in-chargeplanted the paddy paying the company five baskets of
paddy. After two years of growing, they were heavily indebted and had to abandon the lands.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 56
Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investiagtion
Commission
Union Paliament had formed the Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation Commission, and U
Thein Tun, Secretary of Commission, and Parliamentarian of Kyaunggon Constituent Assembly
tackled the issue. In Part 3, Article(18) of the CommissionReport states that as for the management of
the RegionalGovernment, the land holder rights will be granted, however, it did not describe
accurately to which growers: to the farmer who established the land; to the successors, or to the
current holders.
Parliamentarian for the Tharboung Constituent Assembly said the Commission formed by Union
Parliament and Regional Level Constituent Assembly Parliamentarians did not engage directly in land
issues. Regional Level Parliamentarians were not able to help with land concession issues effectively.
During his time as former Regional Parliament Speaker, U Sun Set, he commissioned a team to
investigate these issues.
The way they worked it out with the hold of the findings, they could make oversight to the Regional
Government.'U Sun Set had been withdrawn than the new comer was on an attempt to behold the stake
that had has in the past.' said Parliamentarian. The Members of Regional Parliament were closer to the
grassroots and could work out issues better and more effectively. In the Ayarwaddy region, there were
only about three members of the public active in human rights. The rest were busy with roads,
bridges, economic booming, education and health, etc.
In the Darka Focus Group Discussion in the Kangyidaunt Township, respondents said they had
submitted an appeal letter to U Thein Tun, the Commission Secretary, and he came down to their
grounds for investigation and encouragement. He did not appear again, and therefore, they presented a
second and a third appeal letter. U Win Than from the Tharboung Constituent Assembly came to
debrief and ask about the case. Farmers were asked to write on a paper, on which a Union Solidarity
and Development Party stamp was imprinted. The Member of Parliament guaranteed them this would
help. Contrary to him, the MP from Kangyidaung, U Kyaw Win, told the two farm ladies Swe Swe
Aung and Htwe Htwe Aye from Seikthar, Nyaung Chaung and Payachaung Village Tracts, that was
the Prime Minister from the top and Township Administration Offier from the down, he admitted he
did not convince.
In 2010, people hear rumors that the company went bankrupt and the farmlands would transfer back to
the government. The MP U Chit Hlaing (former Ethnic Unity Part; now Union Solidarity and
Development Party) promised the farmers would get back their farms, however, that never happened
and he paid no more visits. The farmers didn’t get any closer to what they were hoping for by working
with U Kyaw Win, MP for Kangyidaunt Constituent Assembly. In December 2012, U Thein Tun
called for a meeting at Ayar Thiri Town Hall. He reminded Land Management Committee that the
lesses right should be given to the original farmer; if something went was wrong, the responsibility
would be on LMCs. Again, he asked the General Secretary U Maung Maung and Capt. Mya Nyunt
how they get the land lease from the state, and to return it as it is within 10 days. The original farmers
had proofs of land holding. Thura U Shwe Mann also met the farmers and promised them. The
company and its staff did not respond.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 57
Farmers were called to the Agricultural Corporation District Office for investigation in Pathein.
Farmers showed tax slips, had to tell the truth. It also asked Site-in-charge about their desires. Two
months later, the recommendation report was submitted to the Commission. The Commission should
recommend fairly. People who sold out the farms also received some share of land that was not just.
(U Kyaw Khway, Chairman for Yegyi National League of Demorcracy)
Kyaunggon Focus Group Discussion:
In Darka, U Myint Naing, Human Right Defender in Pathein organized a press conference. He met up
three ministers in the Ayarwaddy Region. During the 2013 monsoon, U Thein Tun, Secretary of the
land commission, met the farmers, who presented him with a complete evidence of the case. And he
undertook the consequnences would be encountering for entering the farms. Farmers went down to
farms and erected the posts and restarted ploughing. Like Kyaunggon farmers, there also did
'ploughing strike' in Tharboung but Tharboung farmers had been got suing whilst Kyaunggon farmers
received back the farms and now it has been over a year, the farmers could do the business.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 58
Land Utilization Management Committeess and Land Management
Committees
Involved in most land disputesin Ayarwaddy were the original farmers, first generation lessees, and
the current lessee groups. The original farmers lost their grower rights not because of their fault. The
first generation lessees grew for the company, but when they had financial problems, they mortgaged
or exchanged their farms for some money with moneylenders, or handed the farms over to their
relatives for a while. As for the moneylenders,if the borrower did not pay back the borowed amount
of money and interest, the moneylender came with officials, who (against the law) changed the holder
identity on the plots and tried to get holder rights for the next five years.The result of this chaos is a
tripartite conflict of interest.
In 2010 after the election, voices to resolve land disputes became louder. Ayarshwewah responded
with releasing 41.905 acres of land (in the testimony it described 41.200 acres) with the signature of U
Tay Za.Chairman addressed Prime Minister, Ayarwaddy Region on 2012 July 26. It included
35,886.64 arcres of deep-water farms, 4,813.36 acres of fishery auction ponds, and 1,205.5 acres of
dug fishing ponds.
In the 2013, the release of the Ministry of Home Affairs about for releasing land instructed to follow
the procedures for Vacant, Fallow and Virgin lands described in Figure 13.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 59
Figure 13: Precedures for release of Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land
Land confiscation committed by the Home Ministry shall submit the area of release land to the Union Government (5
(a) (1))
If Union Government agrees, it shall inform headquarters of GAD (General Adminisration Department) (5 (a) (2))
GAD Headquarters shall inform over District GAD through Regional GAD to act in accordance with the procedures. (5
(a) (3))
As soon as the GAD informed shall open the Case for land receipt with the attachment of the maps of the original land
transfer, releasing lands, non-abandon land. (5 (a) (4))
Cases shall be submitted to State/ Regional GAD and then submitted to State/ Regional Government if perfect. For
more than 50 acres of Vacant, Fallow or Virgin land Cases, it shall submit to the Central Committee. (5 (a) (5) (6) (7))
State/ Regional GAD shall submit GAD Headquarters over the remaining area of Vacant, Fallow and Virgin land upon
agreement of State/ Regional Government so that the changes could be notified. It shall be submitted to Ministry of
Home Affairs so that it can release the required Order. (5 (a) (9) (10))
District Collector shall roll out notifications to State/ Regional Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands Management
Committee. Again it shall inform State/ Regional Government. (5 (a) (11) (12))
The former land lessee who wanted to leasehold the land if there are under fifty acres of land, the application shall
submit to Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Work Committee and if the lands exceed fifty acres, with the approval of central
committe, application shall submit to Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Central Work Committe. (5(a) (13) (14))
If acompanydid not want to leasehold the Vacant, Fallow and Virginland, there were 14 stages of
passing within inter-governmental organizations and if it lasts only within one to two months in one
shift, it can be finished at nearly two years of time to reach the hands of farmers. Therefore, when the
companies though they did not exercise by law accordingly, there seems the Central Committee to be
reluctant to occupy back from the hand of companies. One official from the Settlement and Land
Record Department from the Nyaung Don Township said there were noVacant, Fallow and
VirginLandsManagementCommitteemeetings for the last three years. Therefore, in reality,when a
company returned lands in2012, in 2014, it was still not completed.
So far, the Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Central Management Committee has not held any meeting
to take action against the companies, and what is more, it was supposed to accept the quantity of area
of land return by the company which broke the disciplines.An example of this can be clearly seen in
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 60
the third paper descriptions of the President addressed to Union Parliament regarding the land disputes
against Private Companies (see Table 1).
Table 1: Ayarshwewah brief in four townships
Sr.
Township
Resolved
(Ac.)
290
Pending
(Ac.)
0
Case Subject
Description in President Paper
Kyaunggon
Confiscated
(Ac.)
290
1
Farmland belongs to farmers
2
Kyaunggyon
254
254
0
Pastureland grown by 21
farmers in Yone Pin Village
Tract
3
Kyaunggon
300
0
300
4
Tharboung
392.93
392.93
0
Pastureland grown by 59
farmers in Ah Shey Chaung
Village Tract
Farmland belongs to Kyar Ye
Village Tract
On 8-Jul-13, Township Land
Relocation Management Team
for Company's Released Land
had
already
handed
out
temporary leasehold certificate
Only 162 acres of pastureland
had been returned byt the
company. 17 farmers have now
access.
xxx
5
Kangyidaunt
496.93
496.93
0
Farmland belongs to farmers.
Locals said there wre 200 acres
in Darka, 784 in Seik Thar, 728
in Nyaung Chaung, 417 in
Payachaung Village Tracts and
a total of 2,129 acres had been
confiscated.
Farmlands of
Darka were accessed to
changing other forms of
utilization by article 39,
building mills and plants,
ponds,
offices,
barracts,
residential plots to sell out by
giving 250,000 kyats to the
original farmers. Half of
farmers took compensation).
Pastureland left vacant by
farmers; company took hold of it
by approval of the Central
Committee. In Tharboung there
are 13,046 acres, which had
been returned and handed to the
lessees. 14 farmers from Tha
Byay Kyun said there were 291
acres that had not yet been
returned to them.
56 farmers from Seik Thar,
Nyaung
Chaung,
and
Payachaung Village Tracts
asked for 388.17 acres. Among
these, 116.06 acres had been
handed to the proposing 32
farmers, 233.11 acres to the
original
41
farmers,
respectively.
10 ac. had
overlapped. 29 ac. remained unnegotiated and thus it is kept as
pastureland,
and
it
was
decidedthat it a) would not be
handed to any of the parties; and
it would be b) regarded as
pastureland; and c) if someone
trespassed, he would be sued.
Data in thesedescriptionsof Ayarshwewa vary first grabbed and lately returned. Acutally, the current
lessee preserved as per their satisfaction and released three tenths of land to the oringinal farmers.
This hypothesis has proved by cases in Kangyidaunt where most farmers suffered land concessions for
example (10) acres but received back (3) acres only. The real problem here is Their Excellencies,
Ayarwaddy Regional Government, with a straight arrow idea, referring to just Order of 1/64 issued in
1964 (for detail, look at Case Study 2), repeatedly claiming farmers if held the farmland for five
consecutive years continually would have on-going lesse rights. They also witnessed for long-term
investments on the lands undertaken by the current holders. Law also says if someone took hold of an
asset for five years continually without any objections from anyone, shall receive the right of holding
that asset.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 61
Case Study 2: Land Management Central Committee Order 1/64 (Date: 1964 February 13)
Paragraph 2: When resolving the farmland disputes, these three factors should seriously be taken
into consideration _
(a) only people who really grow plants must have right to access to farmland
(b) to maintain the unity among farmers live in the same village
(c) to advance annual crop yield
Paragraph 5: If a previous lessee grew on the lands more than that the current one has done now
and by not his mistake, he lost his farmland and his economy was not exceeded than, the previous
lessee shall have be reserved to register for lessee.
Checklists
(a) economic statistics between two farmers
(b) do they have other plots apart from this disputed area
(c) acrege comparison (who exceeds than 50 acres of farmland)
(d) depending family members
(e) no. of household members who can help in farming comparison
(f) farming asset comparison (cattles/ buffaloes, harrow, tillage instruments)
(g) the disputed land is wide enough for a household monthly consumption and food
security
Paragraph 6 … shalt not exercise straight to hand out the leasehold to the current lessee … only if
the current lessee have already registered by 1963 Farmland Grant By-law accordingly and not
for the call of new applicants. And it does not mean to give favour on the current applicant over
the previous lessee when they both came for leashold registration.
On the other hand, no objectionsby farmers did not mean they agreed; it meant they were oppressed
and their lips were sealed; they did not have the right to speak. Thus, looking at the clauses in Order
1/64: 'if the original lessee had lost the farms not because of his own mistake or breaking regulations,
the decision to grant the current lessee shall not be made.' _ that context should be exercised, there.
The farmers at that period were oppressed by order, power and suppressions, and therefore, they
dropped down the farms. They did not release them voluntarily. If the current lessees could not able
to release the farms for his investment, the original lessee should be granted according to 2012
Farmland Law by the current lesse together with the Government.
Indeed, Order 1/64expresses not only legal but also social justice; if only the regional government
would use it properly, farmers who lost their farmlands involuntarily would have the holder right back.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 62
Focus GroupTalkfindingsarebelow:
Thw NLDchairman of Kana Teik Village Tract, Yegyi Township, is helping 21 farmers, whose farms
were occupied by the Ayarshwewah; in total203acres. He called the plot-in-chargeas well as the
farmersfor questioning. With the help of Plot-in-charge, hewasabletoidentify farmers, who sold out
farms. This information has been reported by theDistrictOfficials to the Prime Minister. As a result,
the farmers received half of theirs lost farms back, as well as the Plot-in-charge and farmers, who
bought lands from Plot-in-charge.
Kangyidaunt Township, Darka Focus Group Discussion:
For frequent appeal letters, the Company offered 250,000 kyats per acre by mediation of U Myint
Naing, a HRDWN human rights activists. Fourteen out of thirty two farmers took the compensation
because of food security challenge. U Myint Naing negotiated with three groups: farmers, Land
Management Committee, and Regional Government. He also suggested holding a ploughing strike,
but because of inadequate equipment and risk of jail, the farmers did not do it. Later, he brought
farmers to the Regional Administrator, U Aye Kyaw, who called another meeting. In the next
meeting, he asked how long the company had been occupying their farms. The farmers answered it
had been 16 years. He questioned the farmers whether they knew if someone had any farm in hold for
five consecutiveyears; if that was the case, he should be able toget an on-going holder right. Farmers'
representative replied that this was according to the 2012 Farmland Law not valid anymore. He
laughed and said: “Just check what the farmers know.”Prime Minister turned the meeting request to
this Administrator.After many negotiations, the Company manager U Maung Maung gave one day a
250,000 kyats 'Compassion Tip' for each acre in the name of the company. Fourteen farmers took it
and the Company took the pictures of the farmers receiving the money, they were also asked to sign a
contract. Farmers, who took the money, had beenencouraged to offer some of the money to the Village
Case Study 3 _ Female Grower Htwe Htwe Aye from Kaygyidaunt
Htwe Htwe Aye lives in Payachaung Village Tract. Ayarshwewah occupied (10) acres of
paretal lands. When the Company was liquidated, she and her friends enthusiastically
attempted to get back their primitive lands and she received three acres. TLMC (Township
Land Management Committee) resolved so, but the current holder did not give away. Then, she
reported it to TLMC and the body asked its following village tract body to issue the letter but
she did not receive nor see the copy though she asked. A number of reports submitted and she
was recommended to open the case at Police Station. She sued her opponent by illegal
trespassing code. Owing to poverty, she cannot hire legal consultant but her opponent defended
by the lawyer. By this way, she lost the chance of growing in 2013. She expected the Case will
be finished in one year and in 2014 planned to grow double for two years _ taking all hearts. It
was supposed her opponent stretched out the Case at the court and did not hand out the land and
then she lost the chance for the year again. In summary, Htwe Htwe Aye actually she was
upper side at the case, but at the court she has been down from upper position seeing as the
regretful story.
Tract Administrator for his services.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 63
Seikthar, Nyaung Chaung, Payachaung Focus Group Discussion in Kangyidaunt Township:
Township Administrator asked his fellow administrators to resolve the disputes by instructing farmers,
who had been the last five years on the farms,to give land grant testimonies (Form - 7).
Administrators later claimed every single dispute had been resolved. In reality, they did not give the
farms back to the affected farmers, nor did they dare handing them over to the current lessees. The
affected farmers urged the administrators to issue a letter that the farms would be given back to the
current holders, and not to the original developers. The administrators they did not issue such a letter.
Farmers were asked to open a case and if it failed to do try to appeal at an upper level.
In the President Paper III, there were 2,129 acres of land confiscated in the Kangyidaunt Township,
496.93 acres of abandoned land. Out of these, farmers from Seikthar, Nyaung Chaung, Payachaung
applied for 388.17 acres; 116.06 acres had been handed to the current 32 farmers, and 233.11 acres to
the original farmers. It was found that leasehold was granted to the current farmers rather than tothe
farmers, who established the farms. If the original farmers were not satisfied with this decision, the
officials would surely take action against them by suing them by commonly known Penal Codes, plus
they would add the Code 188 for disobeying the official's decision and sentence them to jail. Such
instance was found in the case of U Chit Thein (the affected farmer) against U Chit Lwin (Regional
Member of Parliament); U Chit Thein was sent to jail. But on the occasion when farmers are up-turn
and granted to hold some farmlands, and the current rich holders did not give away against the
official's resolution, the responsible body may recommend the original farmers to sue against him and
no more hands-on assistance was found at the Case Study 3 _ Female Grower Htwe Htwe Aye from
Kaygyidaunt.
Case Study 4: The Story of U. Win Tin
He was the Adminstrative Clerk of the Thabyay Kyun Village Tract. When Ayarwshwewah
Company was organized in 1998, seeing the opportunities for the posts of Township-in-charge,
Administrative Unit-in-charge, Site-in-charge (who used to handle both management and
growing the range of 50 to 200 acres), the elite groups in Townships have formulated and
divided the posts among them. U. Win Tin was one of them. Taking the post of Site-in-charge,
he measured himself up the lands with the assistance of Paya Ni Village Tract's Chairman. He
no longer permitted the previous farmers to be his grantee, but granted the lands with his
brothers for (132) acres. His own headmaster, U. Maung Mya pleaded for sparing his land
saying, 'O Ye Pupil, spare for me some for my daily food,' and he replied, 'My Teacher, I am
afraid I was asked to occupy all!'
When he was transferred to different area, he sold the farms out to rich men in the villages. The
persons who bought his land today were member of Land Management Committee, Hundred
Household Adminstrator or Ten Household Administrator or the Village Distinguished and they
were all hesistant to give out to original farmers. The middle lessee taking fortune between the
primary and current holders, getting transfer order and enjoys living in different residence _ he
was merely a runaway sinner.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 64
Tharboung Focus Group Discussion:
Other issues, when the decision for Temporary Land Grants for releasing lands, the farmers were
granted in non-tillable wasteland besides the current holders taking choice of the better lands. U Win
Thein from Tharboung Constituent Assembly pointed out that acreages granted was smalled than
confiscated land. Some farmers accepted the poor plots or the less acreages, whilst others did not.
There came three lessees, the third lessee sued aginst the first lessee happened most especially in
Thabyay Kyun, Kyar Ye Village Tract, Tharboung Township and it was known as 'Trial Enjoys
Thebyay Kyun'.
The Byay Kyun farmers applied for Land Leashold Registration (Form -7) when the company stopped.
Paya Ni, VTLMC (Village Tract Land Management Committee) Member, and U Nyan Lin Aung said,
they did not have the right to decide, although they had been instructed to give rights those, who had
had five years' leaseholding. Farmers said the VTLMC did not encourahe anyone to apply for the land
holder's registration, nor did he announce a call for objections. But they called fourteen people who
originated the farms after the company's concession to information and decided those did not have the
holder right. When appealed to upper level, Tharboung Township Administrator U Tin Aung replied
persons who have currently been on farms for five years only get the land registered (Form -7).
Original farmers and current farmers applied simultaneously for land grant. The VTLMC issued a
letter that it would prioritize the current holders,and if the original farmers were not happy with this
decision, they could appleal to the upper level within one month. When they did so, the TLMC called
both parties for a meeting and decided: “divide the farms into half until receiving the final resolution
and afterwards follow the resolution.” The original farmers agreed, but the current holders did not say
anything. The clerk of Ward Administration Unit argued, “the number of acres applied is higher
thanthe actual acres that had been returned.” The Township Administrator replied on 13 June 2013,
'How the land can be hidden; you pay out what you have in hand.' On 21 June 2013, 14 farmers
consulted and understanding they have half lands received; now there is water in the farms that
reminds to till. The farmers did so and were sued for trespassing (Trespassing Act 447) by the Police
Department. The farmers reached out to the Township Administration Officer, however, heblamed the
authorities: “I requested them to hand back the lands to you. Whether they give t back or not, is none
of my business.”Before they have not been trial attendance, one of these 14 families families, they
came in the yard and built the cottage that double the Penal Code (447). During the trial, the opponent
group submitted a complaint to the District Authority complaining that 14 farmers were ignoring rules,
and so, the District asked the Township to do inspection. Questions were the same as ever. Then, the
results were reported to the upper level. A month later, another meeting was called by the
Townshipannouncing the resolution sent down from the Regional government: “The originalfarmers
shall not get the lands.” The Township asked 14 farmers for their signatures without giving any
attention to their requests to read the letter, or provide a photocopy of it. They were told to go later to
the Village Tract Administration and get the letter there.
According to the Contract Act, the contract maker is the Township Authority and the contractees
arethe farmers. It was clearly an abuse of power not to let the farmers see the letter they had to sign.
The farmers visited a few days later the Township and asked about the letter; the Township said the
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 65
letter had nothing to do with land rights, it was a warning message not to invade in the farms while it
was being on trial. Again, farmers felt disappointed and went up to the District. Unfortunately, they
came across the deputy township administrator, who said the same. In court, although the farmers
related the conversation with the Township Adminstrator, the court did not call him as a witness. The
current holders confessed they were not the originators of the farms. After thirty eight cout hearings,
the 14 farmers got sentence: those who tilled, got one month;those who were involved in building
huts, got two months; and those were who involved in both actions, got three months. An uncommon
fate had fallen to U. Ohn Lwin who came from setting the net and had a look in building the hut and
drank a china of plain tea also got two months' imprisonment. After they were set free, they went to
see the Township, and were finally shown the letter with the message: Ithad been decided by the
Regional Level not to give land leasehold to the oringinators.”
Kyuanggon Focus Group:
No sooner than last year was it heard that Ayarshwewah stopped operation. The originators ran to
Pathein to see the Regional Administrator, whotold them the upper levels have already resolved the
case, but the ground level had not processed the resolution. Farmers were asked to check with the
Township, which further referred them to the Village Tract, which pretended not to know anything.
This waythe farmers have visited the Township thirty-three times. The Township asked the successors
to give half of the land to the oringinators, but the farmers said they could not abandon their land. The
township mediated to give only one-third of all farms. They could not give even an inch of land. It
took several dozensof negotiations where the Township lobbied for the successors to give some some
land to the originators. On the ground yet the originators did not receive any lands. The Village Tract
Administrator, himself, worked as a Site-in-charge and would have to release his lands. If approved,
he would have to give out most of the plots. The Village Tract Adminstrator pleaded to the husband of
Daw Si not to take back the lands, which had been in his hands.
Farmers were no longer patient and invaded the farms and erected posts to proclaim the lands
belonged now to them. From then onward, the lands had benn transferred into the hands of the
originators. Subsequently, the successors came and asked for half of the lands, but the originators
refused it. However, the originators have not been yet registered for the land grant.
Similarly, although the company proclaimed it had released the farms, in many cases the current
holders carried on the leasehold right. The company side, as they have all returned, it was said not to
call them for information or any go-between through the general manager.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 66
Post-resolution Updates
On account of Ayarshwewah lands releasing, U Kyaw Khway, Chairman for National League of
Democracy reviewed: 'it could be he, Thura Shwe Mann, Speaker of Union Parliament, wanted to be
presidency and wanted to get vote for it.'
Tharboung FGD:
The original farmers, who lost their farms,reviewedthe Speaker of Union Parliament, as he wanted to
have good results in the 2015 Election,in which he’d run for President, as he proclaimed during his
U.S. visit. Because of this, the matter of land confiscation by his family shall be resolved and the
farmlands handed back to the originators. Because of the local level authority's poor management and
bias, the originators have not received as much as land they are deserved. Land losers in Tha Byay
Kyun, Kyar Ye Village Tracts, and Tharboung Townships became landless labourers at the Site-incharges. They work there for 45,000 kyats a moth plus meals to this day.
In Darka, the land losers, Daw Mya Kyi (76 years old, 6.2 acres, primitive lands) and U Zaw Gyee (29
years old, 5 acres of farmland and one gardening acre, primitive lands), are now landless and sell betel
nut for theur daily bread and butter.
'The nephew of U Shwe Mann, residing in Mayangon Township Yangon, running the Shwe Kan Thar
Company has applied for registration (Form -7) of the confiscatedland, mentioning U Shwe Mann as
his father. The local peasants objected for the first time. Now, he applies for this again with U Thein
as his father. Peasants object to this for the second time. If they bought lands from farmers, just show
out the contracts with farmers' signatures. The farmers have only received 30,000 kyats for land
establishment. But they have tax slips and neighbouring witnesses. Therefore, the lands should be
handed to the farmers. In cooperation with three rice millers, a businessman, Thein Lin Soe, they
founded another Company named "Shwe Kan Thar". In the confiscated yards, they builta pulses
refinery plant, a paddy-drying mill, and an office. They run micro-credit money lending to trusted
people by their staff members.' (U. San Myint, ex-Headmaster, now farmer, Darka)
Shwe Kan Thar called the bids to sell two acres of lands for five hundred million kyats upon the query
of building clothing factory. The land purchased from U.San Myint is meant for building a hospital;
the rest is occupied for a Fire Station. Earth digging was also made for building a petrol station, but
the locals demonstrated. It is none other than doing donation and good deeds upon the confiscated
lands.
Seikthar, Nyaung Chaung, Payachaung FGD, Kangyidaunt Township:
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 67
The locals do not know about any land related laws. However, they assumed the LMCs deliveredd by
2012 Laws are making on the wrong side and it was not an incident but the upper level did not
sanction against them though complained. Therefore, the peasants were angry. They wanted their
lands back, not a compensation. They are supposed to frequent visiting to the officials, advocating,
appealing and so on got her busy and poorly off for life.
In Yangon-Pathein Highway track, the lands on the roadside and to the left of the Ein Me-Darka
motorway in Darka have been under possession of Ayarshwewah. The vacant lands that had been
changed from farmland were supposed to be made into plots and sold according to the decisions of one
social worker in the Darka Administrative Unit. Darka itself lies in the heart of the Ayarwaddy, a
meeting point of all railways, motorways, waterways (two ports), and the centre of the YangonPathein and the Pathein-Moun Ywar highway roads. It is also the centre of trade in Ayarwaddy, and
for obvious reasons, the company refuses to return the farmlands.
He also continued to benefit from the residents for the entrance of Company is the lands belong to
natives. Among the staff members, U Maung Maung who was deep in poverty due to gambling has
now opened a big shop, and is living as a land, house and shop owner. He also does land trading and
mortgaging.
In late 2010, Ayarshwewah shut down all its running business, liquidated and shared among the
partners and shareholders. Among the confiscated lands, deep-water farms, natural fishery ponds and
dug ponds were returned to the state. However, it did not return the lands in Darka, where a plot of
land costs tens of millions kyats. Originally, it gave 30,000 kyats to the originators and recently they
began paying 250,000 kyats in the name of 'Compassion'. Some farms had been changed to lands that
have been approved for use in other ways by law, and are used for rice mills, bio-fertillizers, fishing
ponds, offices and staff barracks.
As the land resources were shared among the relatives and partners of U Shwe Man, they are still
using the power of the company and are doing the business in different ways. One example is U Thein
Lin Soe, the nephew of U Shwe Mann, who, together with other richmen, succeeded the Ayarshwewah
and is operating a rice and rice stock related commerce. U Shwe Mann's family is running petrol
tations named Terminal in some townships in Yangon and the Ayarwaddy Region. One shop in
Nyaung Don is still in the name of Ayarshwewah. They are also running 'Elite' highway bus
transportation.
On account of the natives, there are endless rivalries and criminal cases among the land oringinators,
successors and current holders. The trial cases are not civil but criminal, and each lasts for about one
year or even more. In one case, the official granted land to the originator but the current holder never
gave the land up. The official instead of intervening himself asked the original farmer to sue the
current farmer. The originator, while suing the current farmerfor nearly two years, became poorer and
poorer.
Peasantsnative of Tharboung did not know much about Land Laws, by-laws or Orders. But they see
the problem solving skill of the Government is very poor. Because the Union Level asked to give the
lands out to the originators, the grassrooot and local authorities did not follow these orders,is what the
Government likely the parents living together with the nortorius sons and daughters.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 68
Peasants who lost lands did not want money but lands. However, the Regional Level Administrator,
Agricultural Minister, as well as Regional Agricultural Officer just repeated the same words: 'Five
Consecutive Years Land Holder will have Land Grant' and therefore, the fortune of the originators,
whose forefathers established the farms, has faded.
Here is a summary of peasants’ comments,who lost their farms and got jailed:
'With no chance to read the text, I had to sign the agreement; now, when I attend a meetings, I never
sign anything and if I am forced, I just say: ‘pretendI didn't attend this meeting.'
'We lost farms; we are deep in poverty because of attending court hearings regularly; we are really
afraid of being asked to sign; we feel ashamed forhaving been sentenced to jail!'
'I wrote our village name as 'The village of the mighty torture of the weak!'
'We need assistance of organizations; certainly, we cannot get out lands back by ourselves!'
In summary, the deep-water farms, natural fishery ponds, and the dug fishing pond projectsmade the
company owners, directors, the senior staff, Township-in-charge, Adminstrative Unit-in-charge and
Site-in-charge rich. The local farmers experienced only land loss, they have been arrested, indebted,
and in the end regranted only 30% of their former land. Citizen ask whether the state is there only for
the cronies and capatalists or also the 51 millionpeople; whether the Poverty Alleviation Projects were
meant to make the poor landless, miserable and make them labourers; whether phrases like 'Good
Governance' or 'Clean Government' were only meant international media as a means of propaganda.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 69
Pantanaw Urbanization Project
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 70
History of Land Holding
In Pantanaw, under Urbanization programme, ex-authority (District Collector as well as District
Chairman) concessed the farmland having access rights by more than 40 peasants. The concessed
areas were Kazingnu Village Tract, Kazingnu village, Ywar Thit Village, and Sein Gyun Village.
They were transformed into new wards under this programme namely Bayintnaung and Ywa Thit
Wards. The land were belonged to their Grandparents, though the type of land is (N), still they had
Tax Receipts.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 71
How the Land is Acquired
Around 1999, there were heresays that authorities were planning to urbanize Bayint Naung Ward, and
Ywa Thit Village into the new Wards. U Kyaw Lin whose farmland were concessed, Co-Leader, 60
Yars old, Land Protection Interest Protection Group and Ko Sabaw (Traditional Medicine Skill Person,
40 years of age, with their families’ members and relatives expressed their heart-felt bitter personal
feelings that they experienced in last thirteen years.
I belonged to two plots of farmland, one in Baying Naung and another in farmland for Summer Paddy,
Farmland Plot number 459/460. Around year 2000, they came here to have the squares in the new
wards. In 2001, the authority concessed my Farmland saying that they were for urbanization
programme now it was called Bayintnaung New Ward. Those who concessed the farmland were
Township Peace and Development Council Chairman U Myo Han, District Chairman, and Lieutenant
Col. Thein Hlaing. In 2001, they did the plots in new urban area. Before they concessed the farmland,
the authoritiy group informed that every one (from each household) must attend the meeting without
fail. As it said so, 50-60 pesants and many villagers attend the meeting. At the meeting, they said as
they liked. Some attendees were asked to stand-by; meaning those who retort were not allowed to sit
down purposely, giving kind of punishment during the meeting. For having to stand-by for long hour
Ma Hla Myint fell down on the floor. The meeting time was after office hour (in the night time) that
people who were about to be land concessed were seemingly tortured in one way.
Ma Hla Myint fell down while standing at the command of the Divisional Commander during
meeting. It was voiced out that peasants were tortured by calling meeting during the night time, after
authority finished their work hour. They said that it was for land concession for doing the
urbanization plan. Authority (District Peace and Stability Council Chairman as well as Area
Commander threatened the peasants whose land were concessed that authority could do as they liked;
arrest or torture. When implementing the urbanization plan, U Sabaw fought against with Township
Peace and Development Council Chairman U Myo Han that U Sabaw was surrounded by the authority
that U Sabaw had to run away from home for seven days. If they returned one plot for my living, then
I could be satisfied. The authorities just sold out the plots up there. Then their rates were about 5-610 lakhs depending on the location. But now they turned to 700-800-1000 Lakhs.
The authority threatened the peasants up there too. They did not move out but kept on growing beans
and doing gardening. Since they did not take the instructions, they destroyed Beans with machines
and Garden by the mob. All the Babana, Mango, Guava, Coconut, Lime trees were cut down. In that
way, peasants were forced to move out. Authorities made trailers available for peasants to move
away. Their local prices there during those days were around 4-5-8 Lakhs per acre for farmland.
They provided us with 40’x60’ plot, which price could be around 100,000 Kyat, or the most 150,000
Kyat. But that one acre farmland now is 800-1000 Lakh per acre market price.
Authority did not do by Law. They jut send out a letter to each house and expressed that they would
concess the land. For those who disagreed to give were supposed to be arrested, District Peace and
Stability Council Chairman as well as the District Commander threatened the peasants by showing
hand-cuff placed on the table. Without the policemen, there was Thaung Wai from Ward Peace and
Stability Council, Immigration Department Township Head U Tin Maung Oo, they called U Sabaw for
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 72
eight times and said that they would concess his farmland, they formed the Land Concession
Committee, where Ward Peace and Stability Council Chairman also included there, he started
demonlished his house as an example for the peasants to follow suit. Authority promised that they
would return 20’x40’ plot after concession of my 2 acres farmland. They promised that they would
make Water, Electricity, from (10) for house-hold registration ready for the peasants whose farmlands
were concessed. They do not give Government Grant-Land of the plot yet. For application, it can cost
about 4-5 Lakhs, we found difficult to apply for Government Grant-Land. We have to pay for land tax
for about a year. We understood that government can take it back or concess again any time, without
that official document. By consequences of land concession, some children could no longer to to
schools as their lives became disorder.
U Thein Win, Chairman of Pantanaw, Peasants and Fishermen Union Chairman, 68 years also
commented on the Urbanization Program happened two years, after his settlement in Panntanaw.
“In new village, only the three streets were to urbanize but the authority concessed two more streets
making five streets for urbanization. They took two more streets (concessed more farmland). The
owner of the said areas could not get back the land, concessed beyond authority. The peasants whose
farmlands were concessed were shifted to the inner part, no conpensation at atll were paid. I arrived
here for about twelve years they concessed the farmland here last (14) years. When I arrived,
farmlands were already concessed.
Authority did not inform anything in advance to the peasants whose farmlands were concessed. Then,
Chillies and Bean on the ground, growing status, but they all were destroyed, authorities concessed not
only the farmland but also the plants on the ground. More than that, authorities did the marketing;
persuaded the buyers that if the buyers purchased the aplot in newly urbanized area, they could have
the crops; bean and vegetables there.
In 2014, Spring and Terrible Land Concession, was published by Share Mercy Humanitarian and
Development Organization. In time of studying for this, SM did the interview with U Than Ohn and
his team players who were from “Interest Protection Group”, stated that District Level, Township
Level Chairman led Land Concession Committees, destroyed the farms which were successfully
grown and potentially high yield by the peasants; Peddy, Grown-nut, Jute, Chilly. Those plants were
intentionally damaged by the use of machines, as well as they were set on fire. Afterwards, peasants
were called and asked and forced to sign the documents which stated that the said farmlands were
unable to use. As they were untrued and that peasants did not want to sign but the authority abused
power and threatened that finally peasants had to give up and signed without their own consents.
U Kyaw Linn, who was tortured by Township Law and Order Restoration Council, asked if Township
Officer had any Order to concess his farmland. Township Authority said he did not know about the
order and it was not needed. In addition to that, he lifted the hand-cuff put on the table and hit the
table. Township authority added no land concession order, Township Authority clearly stated, in that
age, we could arrest, put behind the bar, we could kill you. Those who did not do by the order and
instructions easily were not allowed to sit down. Divisional Commander, Major made me naked and
sun-burned. Township Law and Order Restoration Council Chairman called for meeting only in the
night time. Only two times were in the day time, all the rest meeting were done in the night time; time
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 73
for us to sleep. One time, he called us for meeting and Township Chairman forgot, went back home
and slept but we all were waited for him to come and start the meeting. We were waiting for the
whole night; Township Authority conducted the meeting with Peasant as well as with community.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 74
How the Land is used after Acquisition
The plots located on the Yangon-Pathein High Way Road were sold at the increased rate of 5-6-10
lakhs. The buyers who purchased were well-off from Pantanaw and its environs. Land Relocation
Committee did adviertisement on the Government Official Newspaper “New Light of Myanmar on
6.6.2001 that Plot of Land was to be sold at the first come first serve arrangement.
“Only the Collector Group gained benefits from Urbanization Programme. They allocated the land
and sell out one step after another. Nobody knew how did they use the money they received by selling
the newly urbanized areas.” U Kyaw Lin, 60 Year of Age, Peasant, Bayint Naung New Ward,
Pantanaw Township”
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 75
Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investiagtion
Commission
U Thei Htun from Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation Commission (Secretary of the Land
and Land Related Disputes Investigation Commission, Kyaungkone Member of Parliament), U Sein
Win Han Land Related Disputes Investigation Commission Member of Parliament led Investigation
Commission for that Pantanaw case. They committed that they would submit their report to the higher
level. However, there were no changes yet. U Thein Win from Peasants Affairs and Fishermen Union
Chairman also confirmed that there were no significant changes with regards to that case.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 76
Land Utilization Management Committeess and Land Management
Committees
Local Peasants tried to talk to the authorities in their reach. Though, General Administation Officer
(Ma-U-Bin District) expressed “welcome” repeatedly when meeting with Land Problems Resolving
Committee members (Ayeyawaddy) in Novernber 2014, but he did not really practically “Welcome”
but respondend very rudely to the peasants who asked for farmland status.
“August 2014, three leaders from Peasants Interests Protection Group, (I) U Kyaw Lin, U Than Ohn
@ U Myint Oo, U Ye Htun went to U Aye Thaung, District Genral Administation Officer. “No, Can
not return your farmland. If you go up and complain to the Sakka, No returnable as the one who
concessed your land is King (Human) not the Sakka, said U Aye Thaung.” District Genral
Administation Officer spoke not not human language but a dog’s” U Kyaw Lin, 60 Year of Age,
Peasant, Bayint Naung New Ward, Pantanaw Township”
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 77
Post-resolution Updates
Before moving out, Township Law and Order Restoration Council Chairman, U Myo Han promised
that they would manage to have Electricity, Roads, Streets, Water for Utility to be readily available for
those who were supposed live in the new areas. However, those promises were not fulfilled yet and the
directly affected people would like to counter-question if those pledges could be met in next than
twenty years time. Electricity is on and off, Water for household chore and drinking, they also needed
to be bought from the private business as they are daily needs.
U Kyaw Lin who was severely tortured by the Township and District Law and Order Restoration
Council Chairman felt unfairly treted.
“Authorities did not pay for any reasonable amount of compensation. All the farmland were
concessed, no consideration, regardless of the length and width of the farmland concessed they gave
only one plot of 40’x60’ to each family. That was clearly unfair at all. That is why; I want to ask the
government, how is Myanmar improving currently? Everyone is getting poorer, till nothing to pick up
for survival, all peasants became poorer, I have seven lakhs (indebted) per month 40 Kyats interest
rate, and I need to give daily interest rate to the money lender. In fact I am very familiar with the
money lender that I received that money. There was another money lender came to us, he did money
lending, after three years, he became so rich; owned two track cars then.” U Kyaw Lin, 60 Year of
Age, Peasant, Bayint Naung New Ward, Pantanaw Township”
By consequences of land concessions, peasants were forced to badly practice as they found on other
ways out; money lending; they were very much reluctant to do from their religious point of view.
Similarly, they also question about the people representation in the parliament.
“In Islam, both taking interest and lending money are found guilty; guilt is the same amount to having
sex with one’s own mother. Then you may ask the reason why we lend money. To this, I want to
answer, I had nothing to eat, nowhere to rob in this era, no place to cut the trees, no field to pluck the
watercress. Before I purchased my farmland (which was concessed by authorities), I did pluck the
watercress and saved money and purchased that farmland but mine was concessed by authorities, at
no cost at all in time of council period. Now, you don’t go to the field, if you go up the bank, you
would be accused as “a thief”, fishery lessees, Nyein Myaing and Kyin Nyein brothers’ workers are
many. They put many people (peasants) into the jail. Now that Nyein Myaing once fishery lessee
became the Member of Parliament, in Regional Parliament. U Kyaw Lin, 60 Year of Age, Peasant,
Bayint Naung New Ward, Pantanaw Township”
Peasants whose farmlands were concessed were still afraid of the departments. SM team took photo
and voice records and did direct observation and converse with the directly affected families whose
land were concessed; during the study period, they were still afraid, and they were questioned about
the SM team and asked more detail information about the task by staffs from special branch
immediately after SM team went out their compound. After the investigation by SB, they were also
worried for the SM team that they contacted whether SM team was alright and free from any danagers
or already arrested or not. Community Leader commented that people are under the influence of fear
in this democratic era.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 78
“I am now sixty year of age. Who wrote “Law”, government did it, no citizen wrote or participates in
writing this. Though this is democracy era, still no citizen can participate in writing the Law. In the
grass-root level, the bottom, citizens are being over-influenced by the fear. We are not free from fear
yet. U Kyaw Lin, 60 Year of Age, Peasant, Bayint Naung New Ward, Pantanaw Township”
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 79
Myaungmya Industrial Zone
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 80
History of Land Holding
The people who were direcly affected by land concessions lived in Godaung Kwanchan village, Kyun
Char Lay village, The Zin Kone Gyi village, Kyun Kalay village, under Phayarchaung Village Tract
before land concessions for three generations continuously. They stayed there happily and peacefully
with high quality of lives. Every year, they paid for taxation in return for access to land right for more
than one century. They did farming and gardening there. In 1992, they were land concessed. Their
status changed from high quality lives to hopeless, with no more education and became uncertain for
basic needs of the families on day to day basis. It was because they were asked to donate their
farmland and garden by Kyaw Thura @ the Collector @ District State and Peace Council Chairman.
He stated that it was for Industrial Zone Programme and that will ensure Region’s Development.
“Kyaw Thura asked my father to donate the garden to him, and then that collector sold out to the
Businessmen. Collector threatened that if my father failed to donate then my father could be arrested.
When my father said “No” collector responded that land is State own, towards this my father fought
back by saying that if it is State Own, you just take it, don’t ask from me and don’t ask for my
signature on this donation. Kwelwe 24, Phayarchaung Village Tract, Godaung Kwanchan,
Phayarchaung two villages, all were concessed.” U Thaung Shein, 65 years old, 9 acre access right
holder of Garden. (Pass-away), His Son, Nay Myo Win, 38 Years, General Worker, Myayadanar New
Ward, Myaung Mya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
In time of concession, nobody gave compensation for land, fruit trees, and seasonal trees. For the
families’ livings whose lands were concessed, they needed to purchase at 2000 Kyat for 40’x60’ for
each family. The same to their garden’s concession, the plot of land was originally owned by peasants
and they were also asked to donat to transform as Urban too, and that farmland land became
Myayadanar, new ward for the land concessed people. As living is a must, land concessed people
tried to sell out and pawn their belongings and made house possible in new ward. It was already more
that twenty two years; still they keep on surviving in deep poverty, with no education, hope, but with
much difficulties and disappointment.
Nay Myo Win and Ma Aye Aye Maw, Land Concessed People, whose family are currently living in
Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya Industrail Zone became 38 and 43 years old brother and sister,
now. When their land was concessed, they were just 16 and 21 years old. Since then, Ko Nay Myo
Win worked as “General Worker” and Ma Aye Aye Maw as “Vendor” to solve their livelihoods
problems.
Their concessed garden was cleared by their grandmother Daw Tint and Grandpar from rough terrain
situations. Then onwards, grandmother Daw Tint annually paid for the tax for almost 9 acre of land
for access holder’s right. They planted Coconut trees, Bettle Nut trees, Banana, Guava and Nipa Palm.
This garden was located inner part of Kyunyarlay Stream. As far as they are informed, first time, they
lost 4.47 acre of garden to the industrial zone programme by force and they still have the access holder
right of remaining garden 3.80 acre, as it was not at all used by anyone for more than twenty years.
They used the land and consumed the produce as usual and paid for the tax without fail till 2012.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 81
However, what they learned through the Clerk of Land Registration and Land Record Department was
that their 3.80 acre of garden was again concessed, though they had no knowledge of the one who took
their land ownership away.
On contrary to the official document, on the ground, as there were no owner for more than twenty
years, and did not use for industrial zone, Nay Myo Win and family, original owner took good care of
the garden. They could not make any clear picture of how did he/she received the ownership out of
nowhere.
In 2014, under new political system, Nay Myo Win and family received 1.50 acre with Form 3, for
temporary access to land. However, issue date was not found on that official document, though it was
signed by Officer and given by the team included Township General Administration Officer,
Phayachaung Village Tract Generarl Administrative Officer, Township Land Record and Registration
Department Officer. Nobody knew lacking issue date was by accidence or on purpose.
According to the rule of that temporary document form 3, peasant is supposed to access to the said
land for four years without fail. After reaching four year, if he is proven then he can apply for form 7
for the ownership of the land at the Land Record Department. Since issue date is missing, he can not
get that ownership status. This is the negative effect.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 82
How the Land is Acquired
Industrial Zone Implementaion Committee Chairman @ the Collector as well as the District Peace and
Development Council Officer called for the meeting. Peasants; heads of the families were invited to
attend without fail though the village head. At that meeting, they were informed that all farmland and
garden were concessed for using as Industrial Zone. All the tax slips paid up to now were cancelled.
Collector asked U Thaung Shein, 65 years old (who was the Father of Nay Myo Win and Family) to
donate the garden. When responding that old person can not donate, collector threatened that U
Thaung Shein can be arrested for his denial. Finally, Collector said that State Own the land, owner
talked back, if State Own, then you took, do not ask me to sign on the document. Arguments were
there at the meeting between Father and Collector. Whatsoever it is, as they have power, U Thaung
Shein just had to sign on the official document that he donated the land. Their family felt that they
were force to donate. This caused people involved mental and physical pain, one died and one went
crazy due to this concession.
“We are informed by the village head that head of the family must attend the meeting without fail. My
father did not sign twice. Later, daddy was threatened that he could be behind the bar. Under this
situation, Dad let it go without consent. Collector said that State Own the land not the Citizens. To
this, Father became very angry and asked if The State Own, why should you bother for having my
signature? Collector mentioned if you don’t sign, then we can not concess the land. Our family feels
that this is just abuse of power and concession by force. Not long after that concession, our father
died, we lost our land and our beloved daddy” Nay Myo Win, 38 Years Old, General Labour,
Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
There were no compensations plus CSO felt that peasants were unfairly treated in land concessions for
this programme.
“Authorities failed to refer or followed suit the 1894 Land Acquistion Act. They expelled the Peasants
by forming the “Industrail Zone Implementation Committee”. They took the farmlands that have been
used as farmland for more than 30-40 years.” U Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old,
Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
They did not get any compensation for their land concession. Collector allowed the land concessed
families to get their trees on the concessed land sell to the new ower. For one coconut tree can sell at
200 Kyat and one Betal Nut Tree can get at 100 Kyat. The rest can not be sold out. This is the only
sympathetic arrangement by the Collector they received, the brother and sister expressed.
Family members did not know 1894 Land Concession Act in the past and yet to know now. In 2014,
Activitst said, few peasants received the compensation but they were not at the Local Rate as existing
Collector U Tun Min Zaw barred them not to pay the Local Price of the Land, he asked to pay only 15
Lakh per acre. We assuemed that this can be troublesome for the people to resettle, they might not get
back the proper place to live again with the given compensation.
“Though Rich People in the Industrial Zone sell their land at 800-1000 Lakh but for compensation
District General Administration Officer Tun Min Zaw assessed not to pay more than 15 Lakh” U Win
Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 83
“Those Authorities let us cut the trees in our compound, or if we don’t want then those can be sold out
at 200 Kyat for a coconut tree and 100 Kyat for Betal Nut tree to the Industralists: new comers” Nay
Myo Win, 38 Years Old, General Labour, Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya Township,
Ayeyawaddy Region.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 84
How the Land is used after Acquisition
They found two factories; one miller and one peddy husk miller moved nearby them. They were
formerly operating in the town. Those millers were also forced to move out the Industrial Zone, they
stated. For one plot of land having 1.70 acre, they had to purchase at 60,000 Kyat then.
“We run the business in the town former time. But government asked us to move to the new area. We
don’t have other options. So, though we did not have much money, we had to make possible for
buying a plot at 60000 Kyat in 1992. We got a plot of 120’x 450’ for our miller. We had to buy the
plot from (District Peace and Development Council Chairman; Lieutenant Commander, Than Myint),
Secretary Aung Myint, then moved. But very difficult to access, only water way, it has. No motorvehicle road. Business was not okay that one year later, we sold back.” KO Naing Lay, 44 years,
Once Miller now General Worker, Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy
Region.
Lands were concessed in the name of the Industrial Zone but on the ground not much of them were
used at all, told by the original owner and CSO.
“As we personally see that they did not do anything to around 4 acre of our land for more than twenty
years, being the oringal owner, we want to get them back for our livelihood only. So, we went to Land
Record and Registration Department to ask for this but they keep saying that there is an owner. I feel
this can be only on the paper, on the ground, nobody came.” Aye Aye Maw, 43 years, Vendor,
Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“Authorities could not implement to be hundred percent Industrial Zone. Only five percent of the total
concessed lands were used for Industrial Zone purposes. The remainding lands were handing over
from one owner to another at higher rate than ever and resulting higer rate of the land in the region.”
U Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“We can also be sympathetic with them. We don’t ask for the land they have already implemented,
because there is cost incurred. We know. But the one they did not use at all and leave it for as it is for
long, this is our grandparents’ belongings that new so-called owner did not even have the fence. So,
we take care of it, conume the produces annually and if possible, we want to have the re-ownership.”
Nay Myo Win, 38 Years Old, General Labour, Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya Township,
Ayeyawaddy Region.
“As per Township Land Record and Registration Department, there is a new owner on the paper.
Owner is an officer from the Land Record and Registration Department; it seems to me that he does
not get the best selling price that he is just keeping on hold” Aye Aye Maw, 43 years, Vendor,
Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“Farmlands consecutively used for 30-40 years were transformed into the plots for the Industrial Zone
and they let those plots to people whom they liked or favoured. Those people who received the land
did not do anything and left it as it was. Those farmlands became damaged. U Win Shwe, Peasants
Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 85
Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investiagtion
Commission
Land Commission did something by the Parliament there but they did not make any significant change
due to lacking cooperation and implementation by executive power. People who involved in this case
mentioned that MPs came here once but they were not asked that they had no idea with them.
“Land and Land Related Disputs Resolving Commission, Team 2, Head, U Thein Htun (MP) came
here. He asked for Compansation. He talked to the peasants. But he did not inform back to the
peasants. MP asked for returning the land, but as government did not do anything, nothing happened.”
U Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“U Thein Tun and U Sein Win, MPs from Land and Land Related Disputs Resolving Commission came
here once. They went round the compound by car. They did not ask us that we don’t know what they
do there”. Nay Myo Win, 38 Years Old, General Labour, Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya
Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 86
Land Utilization Management Committeess and Land Management
Committees
Since this is Industrial Zone Implementation Programme, they formed the Industrial Zone Programm
Implementation Committee and implement. In this committee, District Peace and Stability Council
Chairm @ Divisional Commander of the Committee acted as the Chairman. His informed that the
farmlands were concessed for industrial zone programme and starting that day, all the tax paid for the
farmland became cancelled. Peasants did not want to accept that situations but as they threatened that
those peasants who did not see eye to eye with the peasants could be taken action said by the junior
staff of Commander Officer; behind the bar. Unwillingly, peasants had to let the heir go that they
owned and taken special care generation after generation.
Nay Myo Aung and Family day to day eye-witnessed that the remainder of concessed land; 3.80 acre
for the Industrial Zone was not touched at all for more than twenty years and they can be returnable by
the State. They were informed by the media persons residing in Myaungmya Township as well as
CSOs. They followed suit the advice and wrote up the “Complaint Letters” to the high ranking
persons in the government. They mentioned that they wanted to get back their Garden as they were
not used or Compensation. They addressed to Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, Agricultural
and Irrigation Department Minister, Vice-President U Nyan Htun and Prime Minister of Ayeyawaddy
mainly.
In Land Concessed Families, it was significantly found that Industrial Zone Program discontinued
their children education. As family survival is first priority, former students, now child workers had to
take up any available types of jobs regardless of religious believes. Significantly, land concessions
cause their livelihoods the most difficult. People who personally involved in this terrible fighing
became greatedly saddened and expressed those bad experiences in tear. Family member and one
CSO said one person died of disappointment and one went mad out of land concession.
“Our father died, we lost our land and our beloved daddy, no sooner had the land was grabbed, he
passed away”Nay Myo Win, 38 Years Old, General Labour, Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya
Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“There was a girl who went crazy as her land was also concessed; her name is Naw Mya Nyunt” U
Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“As it is for livelihood, we could not think of anything at all, we tried not to do any fishing by
generation, those are bad deeds, we believe so, but as it is our survival, we can not choose the type of
jobs and just take up whatever is available (Speaking in tear), if we could continue our education, we
won’t be working that tiredly up to now.” Nay Myo Win, 38 Years Old, General Labour, Myayadanar
New Ward, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
For the positive point, they calculated that Land Record Department Officer can gain briberies as they
had to deal with rich people from the Zone, new owners. However, the new zone is not really
functioning that they only heard and found selling and buying of the plots at higher rate, making the
land price higher than ever.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 87
“Former time, we had to pay only 15 lakh per acre, now they are selling at 700-800 Lakh. U Win
Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“We moved here as government asked to move by force, one year, we did the business, no good due to
poor access, and sold out one year later, we got 10 lakh. New one, who bought from us, did the same
and one year later, he got 15 lakh. Currently, the plot nearby ours, sold back, and they got 6000 Lakh
as they have building inside. Price went up amazingly. I don’t hear much about the functioning of
the industrial zone. They are just keep selling one to another, this is the business happening. KO
Naing Lay, 44 years, Once Miller now General Worker, Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya
Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“For the businessmen, it is profitable. Miller and Peddy Miller are working. Few of the community
memers got the jobs there. But these millers are quite smelly. One time, Gas exploed and got fired.
“U Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
People who suffered from the Land concession and CSO asked for returning the land willingly for
their livelihood if no use and to do thing appropriately and fairly. Government and Parties can not
avoid solving this issue as it is happening on the ground as a reality.
“To gain full support of the people in the country, governing body or parties cannot neglect the
peasants whose lands were concessed for one or other reasons. They must do accordingly.” U Win
Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“Return 3.80 acre, the remaining land, it is my generation, my grandmother, grandfather and my
daddy’s belonging, you did not do anyting after concession, we do traditional work on it for our
livelihood.” Aye Aye Maw, 43 years, Vendor, Myayadanar New Ward, Myaungmya Township,
Ayeyawaddy Region.
Peasants Affairs Activist pinpointed that missing the voice of peasants and their representatives
weaken the Law made for those peasants. He called for amending the enacted Law.
“Without knowing Peasants Nature and agricultural context, unable to identifying seeds varieties;
from the kind of rice which has a fragrant aroma when cooked and Nga Kjwe (normal variety of rice
with no fragrant when cooked); those people decided and enacted the Law for peasants were very
incorrect”. U Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy
Region.
“Enacted Laws were not for Peasants but for the Rulers who had a prior understanding with the
Capcitalists and followers of the Capitalists.” U Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old,
Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“2012 Farm Land Law and Rules and Regulations were wrong. Those could not absolutely protect the
interest of the peasants.” U Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township,
Ayeyawaddy Region.
Land Management Committee at village, township, district and divisional level are wrong. It was
because all the existing authorities again represent in Land Management Committee at various level.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 88
Though the names and political system were changed but only those authorities take the positions on
the ground at various levels. Their performance and decisions are still the same. For instance, the
authority in the village or township former time became the representative or chairman in the
community again. It seemed, authority purposely arragned to be so.
“70 Percents of solved Land Issues were erroneous. The Land Management Committees decided
incorrectly. Regarding this, law favoured that for all the incorrect and mismanagement of the Land
Management Committees shall not be sued at any court in the country. Having stated so, Land
Management Committees enjoy the right to decide as they like”. U Win Shwe, Peasants Affairs
Activist, 67 Old, Myaungmya Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Nay Myo Win and Family received 1.50 acre with Form 3, for temporary access to land. However,
issue date was not found on that official document, though it was signed by Officer and given by the
team included Township General Administration Officer, Phayachaung Village Tract Generarl
Administrative Officer, Township Land Record and Registration Department Officer. Nobody knew
lacking issue date was by accidence or on purpose.
If it is so, this will be of no use as they will need to have four years of consecutive access to land and
apply for form 7, with no issued date; they can not count the time or year. Instead of feeling
happiness, family became very much uncertain holding so-called official document in hand.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 89
Figure 14U. Win Shwe, Land Activist and Reporter of Hittine Journal in Myaungmya District
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 90
Figure 15Appeal letter of who lost the lands
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 91
Figure 16Till to Date trying to fill vacant plot for more than two decades of Myaungmya
Industrial Zone
Figure 17Though it has been 22 years' of land lost and the land belongs to U. Myo Win forefathers
and is still vacant to date
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 92
Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Development
Project of Dr. Than Htut in Nyuang Don
Township
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 93
History of Land Holding
Thirty ninepeasants including U Khin Maung Lwin have been living in the villages under Byawthalan
Village Tract, Nyaungdone Township, M-U-Bin District, Ayeyawaddy Region with the families for
long. Their main livelihoods were farming. In consultation among the 39 Peasants, at the begining,
they cleared the vacant land nearby their village together just like the other peasants who lack own
farmland. Approximately, they received 100 basket of paddy per year by each family. Therefore,
their livelihoods were alright in the early stage. Many of the peasants paid the tax of 3000 Kyat per
acre through the Land Record and Registration Department Clerk annually. As a result, some received
the Tax Slips, but some failed to get them. However, whether a peasant will have tax slip or not was
much depended on the Cleark. Whether Tax Slip peasants received through Clerk could be a genuine
or fake was another matter which was beyond Peasants control.
Peasants found difficult to go to Land Record and Land Registration Department Office. Especially it
was because they are not highly educated, unable to go, do not know how to go, no motivation or little
willingness to go to government offices (afraid of officers, having inferiority complex, lacking
transparency, natural as well as man-made disasters and system error; having to deal with the cleark
only for tax matter). Those factors were happened to be the barriers for the peasants not to have the
official document for the land they have been accessing.
In accessing the land, as per the old system, what civil society understood was that whoever did the
farming on any vacant land, peasants did their parts. Access right was based upon who did the
farming on particular area. How much tax will have to be paid was assessed by the respective
departmental Cleark. None of the peasants had ever tried to have the official access right in the past at
all, it was stated by the civil society activist.
“Peasants duty was done if peasants did the farming on any available area. How much produce did
the peasants received and how much should be paid as tax was assessed and noted by the department
and they asked for it from the peasants. It is the usual practice in the community. In the villages, as
long as a peasant does the farming regularly in particular area, then it is regarded as his/her
farmland. For the government department, they can see the paid slip. No peasant applied for “Access
Right on the farmland” officially in the past.” U Maung Maung Tar, 52 years, Land Issues Resolving
Committee Secretary, Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy Region.
On the other hand, in 2006, Dr.Than Htut applied for Form 39; Access Right on Vacant Land, Fallow,
and Virgin Land and gained 4th Mar 2010. However, on the ground, since the stage of application for
form 39; measuring the land and mapping status, Dr.Than Htut voiced out to the community that land
was already in his ownership. The said land of his ownership reached very near to the village
terriority. This ownership seemingly drove 39 peasants away from the farmland access right and
caused a lot of trouble for their families’ survivals.
In addition to that, regarding ownership, CSO found out that there were weaknesses by the side of the
Land Record and Land Registration Department. Dr.Than Htut applied for access right in 2009 but on
the ground he took the possession in 2006 and gained the official ownership in the year 2010.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 94
“Initially, local peasants of 39 did more than 100 acre only. What I was not convinced was that
Dr.Than Htut applied for form 39 in 2009. If it was so, why should he be on the ground since 2006? It
was the time that Peasants were already on the ground. This is the weakness of the authority of the
department.” U Maung Maung Tar, 52 years, Land Issues Resolving Committee Secretary,
Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“Regarding the ownership, on 12 June, by the decision of Village Land Management Committee, 39
Local Peasants received the right to access the land, being large vacant land more local peasants are
allowed to do the farming there that new 11 peasants did the farming too.” U Maung Maung Tar, 52
years, Land Issues Resolving Committee Secretary, Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Orignally 999.21 acre was virgin soil. Up to 2001-2003-2003, local peasants accessed to that area
regularly till 2006.
Being virgin soil, as well as wide for anyone to do alone, total 39 peasants discussed among
themselves and collectively clared the land. As it was thick and wild they needed to use the machine
as well as labourers and cost incurred; it cost 30000-40000 Kyat per family for clearance in addition to
familiies’ members. By consequences, they could earn 100 baskets per family annually.
“Being thick and wild area with high bushes, we had to take twenty days for an acre clearance, bushes
reached up to eight feets, we had to clear collectively, that was not easy task at all.” U Mya Aung, 55
Years Old, Peasant, Byawthalan, Byawthalan Village Tract, Nyaungdone Village Tract.
“Local Peasants as well as Residents did the farming for a bout 100 acre. They can not do (all full
area) this is beyond their capacity.” U Maung Maung Tar, 52 years, Land Issues Resolving
Committee Secretary, Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Some of the peasants out of 39 have Paid Slips after paying Tax, while the others have “BaYaKa”
meaning “Document issued by the Central Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Committee for temporary
access rights” and another group of peasants lost those documents to the “heavily damaging natural
disaster; Cyclone Nargis in 2008. However, peasants assured that they could get the witnesses for
their annual farming for long period. In general, all 39 do not have official document for ownership.
There were exceptional cases, where peasants could not pay 3000 Kyat as tax per acre that they did not
have that document. This scenario is on the ground.
“Maung Naing Win has tax slip up to 2014.” U Thaung Kyi, 62 years, Peasant, Kyauk Dai Village,
Byawthaland Village Tract, Nyaungdone Township, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 95
How the Land is Acquired
Peasants had been accessing to the land, but in 2006, Dr.Than Htut asked the peasants to move out
from that land saying that it was in his possession. Local peasants did so as they were asked.
“In 2006, Dr.Than Htut said that land was his belongings since eight years ago, as he said so,
peasants followed suit.” U Maung Maung Tar, 52 years, Land Issues Resolving Committee Secretary,
Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 96
Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investiagtion
Commission
There was no significant role of the Land Commission. Locals did not get the proper guidance and
advice from the MPs in solving the land issues. By the side of the locals, they lack information and
advice to take in solving the land concessions.
“Regarding our Land Concession, we were told that we needed to meet Ko Aung Mya Than (House of
Representatives Parliment Member, Nyaungtone), when we met him, Ko Aung Mya Than (MP) said
that he can not help with the case.” U Thaung Yin, 62 Years Old, Nyaungtone, Byawthalan Village
Tract, Nyaungdone Township.
“Invester, businessman, Gentleman, Dr.Than Htut bullied that Local Peasants lost in the game. It was
known to MP U Thet Lin, but he said that he did not know as Peasants did not submit the case to him.”
U Khin Htwe, 55 Years Old, Shwe Gyi Gone, Nyaunggone Township
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 97
Land Utilization Management Committeess and Land Management
Committees
In 2013, families decided to re-access to farmland due to survival needs and Dr.Than Htut filed the
case to Village Land Management Committee wrontly in the place of submitting the case to Vacant,
Fallow and Virgin Soil Management Central Committee according to the procedure.
In response to file case, without noticing the fact that having to deal with this issue is more than the
given mandate, Village Tract Land Management Committee wrongly decided that the local peasants
should be encouraged to access to this land, released the official letter and it said Committee should
issue the Form 1 and Form 7 for Land Access Right should be authorized. Due to this decision, local
additional eleven peasants joined original 39 peasants for accessing the land.
Dr.Than Htut was not pleased with the decision that he appealed to Township Land Management
Committee, the higher level, wrongly again. Without noticing that it is beyond their mandate or
Township Management Committee overused the power; gave the access right to Dr.Than Htut.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 98
Post-resolution Updates
After having the decision from the Township Land Management Committee who gave access right to
Dr.Than Htut, 39 peasants who receivced the right to accesss by the Village Land Management
Committee reaccessed to the farmland the ploughing that Dr.Than Htut sued 39 peasants by article 26
and 27, vacant fallow and virgin soil Law; damaging the interest of other property and invasion
according to Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Soil Law. In response to this, as it is Police Actionable Case,
U Maung Maung Tar from Land Issues Resolving Committee Secretary, went to police station and
explained to the police officer about the case: whole scenarios and why it is happening and what
should be by by law.
In meeting Regional Land Record and Registration Department Head U Kyaw Htin, U Maung Maung
Tar added “To have the proper decision for both the parties; one has to put all factors; 39 peasants’
weaknesses but they cleared the wild thick bushes and failure by the side of the investers; who never
implemented and or any business and related to the case; into considerations. At the same time, he
suggested to Land Record and Registration Department Head U Kyaw Htin that they should leave
village land and water terriority free, it should not be used for any businesses.
“Byawthalan case is alright at the base (village level) but not Oakay in regional level. There is no
way for local peasants to have official farmland access as higher level did not have the same decision
with the village level. If we keep it at the present stage local peasants will lose the chance of farmland
ownership or access right. By law, Township Level doesn’t have decision making power, but they did
not care and they did and released the official letter. Deciding beyond their mandate is unacceptable.
“U Maung Maung Tar, 52 years, Land Issues Resolving Committee Secretary, Nyaungdone,
Ayeyawaddy Region.
According to the decision made by Village Tract Land Management Committee on June 12, it said
Committee encouraged Local Peasants to do the farming there on that land. As they said so, (11) extra
local peasants joined the farming together with the original peasants of 39. As per decision made by
Village Tract Land Management Committee, they said only original peasants of 39 could continue
farming on existing one hundred acres and Dr.Than Htut could stay make use of the land he currently
Case study1 U Kalar 55 years cleared for three acre of farmland. Like the other 38 peasants, I
cleared the farmland collectively since 2004-2005. I also gained 100 basket of paddy every year.
Thick bushes plot highed about eight feet. Too thick that I needed to rent the machine as well and
was responsible for the cost. After clearing the plot, I got the document to access the land by village
authority decision. Happily, I used it and paid for the tax for 3000 Kyat per acre regularly. I get the
tax receipt up to 2014. Later, investor came and I lost his land. My eye-witness!. Investor did not
use the land. Case against me was filed at the village level with other mates. Upon reaching the
decision from the Village Land Management Committee, my peasants and I accessed to our former
belongings but our group was sued for it. I did not understand why high authority (Township Land
Management Committee) decided wrongly (without knowing the reality; on the ground and gave the
access right to the rich Dr.Than Htut. For many years, our daily food is not sure. My family and I
are just hoping for the right to grow for living as soon as possible.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 99
using. But neighter the parties are allowed to expand at all.
“As per the decision made on June 12 by Village Tract Land Management Committee, more local
peasants joined the farming on the said ground as it encouraged so.” U Maung Maung Tar, 52 years,
Land Issues Resolving Committee Secretary, Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy Region.
Case Study of the 39 Peasants, who involved in this land consession
Case Study No.2. U Khin Htwe, 55 Years, Shwe Gyi Gone, Nyaunggone, started the
farming in 2006-2007 after clearing the bushy places in 2004-2005. Altogether there were
35 Peasants at the very beginning. Then Dr.Than Htut filed the case against us (35
Peasants). Village authority decided and we, Peasants won; got the right to do the farming
there. Since the local authority encouraged to do the farming on that disputed ground that
more local landless of 19 joined and did the farming happily together. Dr.Than Htut went
up to Higher Level and appealed. He was given the right to access again at higher level. As
it happened so, local authority dared not bar us but our possession was not sure. We need to
have the higher level support as well like our village aouthority. We don’t know how to
make sure for our living?
Case Study 3 U Thaung Yin, 62 Years Old, 7 Acre earned annually for 80 baskets
for 9 years consecutively. As per Myanmar Calander, in 1359, within two years
time, I tried for getting Bayaka; temporary right to access to the said land. It cost
30000 Kyat per acre. The authority U Kan Shein who issued that document could
withness for me. But till now, ownership is very much uncertain that family
survival is at high risk.
Regarding coping with the Land Concession Issues, Departmental, Locals, Businessmen who received
the right to access to land need to have dialogue and seek most appropriate solution collectively. In
this issue, local peasants alone can not make use of available land in the areas. At the same time, to
use the land of 999 acre alone by Dr.Than Htut was also beyond his capacity. Under this condition, we
should consider for workable, fair and socially justifiable answer to this issue just to assure for
stability of the region, high productivity rather than thinking legal factor alone.
Local stressed that rather than leaving the land without using for any purpose, they are eager to use
them. They feel that by doing so, they can contribute for the staple food supply for the countrymen.
Simultaneously, they can do traditional type of carreer that they enjoy generation after generation. By
this result, they can also assure their families’ survivals and livelihoods.
“Dr.Than Htut did not do anything on the land. That is why; we want to use our land as per Central
Committee Law. It has been already long time that we did not get the access right; our lives are
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 100
suffering and loosing. I don’t know about the existing laws. If we got the right to do the farming there,
we will be okay for our living. U Thaung Yin, 62 years, Nyaungtone.
“It would be good if it is solved. Those who understand the law did not do as per the Legal Practice.
They became biased that peasants suffer. Negotiation is needed between these two classes of people.
Let’s say Dr.Than Htut win then it could create very big problem in the area. If Local Peasants got
access right, we can not use the whole plot of land. Village Authority has to do it right in this case. U
Maung Maung Tar, 52 years, Land Issues Resolving Committee Secretary, Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy
Region.
Local peasants stated that as the owner by official document did not do any program local failed to
enjoy the benefits. Instead locals’ level of poverty increased and families’ survival became at risk.
“We happened to be in a stationary postion (lost the right to access to farmland that we cleared) since
that Doctor arrived. Then we were informed that new owner got four years (permitted time to do the
program) but as our survival is having a great question mark, we were forced to do the faming. We
had Bayaka (temporary certificates which allowed us to do the farming on that Vacant, Fallow and
Virgin land by Vacant, Fallow and Virgin land Management -Central Committee. Chairperson, U
Kan Shein can witness for us, he endorsed and releasd that document for us, he can be our witness”
Peasant, 55 years old, Shwe Kyee Kone, Byawthaland village tract, Nyaungtone Township.
“Dr.Than Htut took 999.21 acre in hand but he did not even implement for 0 acre. “ U Kalar, 55 years,
Local Peasant, 3 acre, Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“Dr.Than Htut did not do anything on his so-called owned land on the ground.” U Thaung Yin,
62years, Local Peasant, 7 acre, Nyaungdone, Ayeyawaddy Region.
“Since concession, Dr.Than Htut did not make use of the land at all. As per existing law, Dr.Than
Htut failed as he could not do anything (implementation). Law said investor had to implement within
six month of having access.”U Mya Aung, 55 Years Old, Peasant, Byawthalan, Byawthalan Village
Tract, Nyaungdone Village Tract.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 101
Analysis and General Recommendations
History of Land Holding
The State Government and Government Organizations mostly misuse the Articles described in 37 (a)
of the Constitution. The perspective the State Government and its officials has fully control over the
total land and concess if they think it should be done, applied by the departments and shared among
the investors and capitalists _ to lands accessed and grown by the local farmers by customary
establishment _ this has been divergent between the government and public.
Ref: the Constitution
37 (a) The State is the original owner of all lands and all the resources above and
under land, water and air _ everything.
37 (b) The State shall adopt the necessary laws to supervise over exploitation of the
business forces.
37 (c) The State shall allow its citizens to own the property, right to interitance,
invention or creation and copyright by regulation.
23 Regarding the farmers, the State shall
(a) enact the necessary law to protect their rights;
(b) regulate the yields and crops can be exchanged for the fair market value
Just
they are referring to Article 37 (a), should regulate and exercise to monitor and supervise over the
exploitation of natural resources, protecting the land rights for the citizens, effectively and efficiently
as per the sub-Articles 37 (a) and 37 (b) and why should not they think over it? Besides that, shall the
law like Farmers Interests Protection adopted in 1963 not be adopted using the Article 23. In
formulation of Farmers Interests Protection and Enhancement Law made in 2013, the practices of
holding or let the farmers holding Farmers Assembly in Townships to take true farmers voices and
inputs were simply to act but not exercised yet.
The farmer especially peasant or family farmer who does farming traditionally are the human
resources the country should preserve. From their yields, the whole country is fed. They will never
abandon their home and land except for the situation they suffer from extreme risks of food security
and livelihood or they were never used to it.Thus, the State should protect and reserve them by making
laws and regulations, the farmlands accessed by these family farmers shall not be confiscated by any
means without very strong reason and _ only the time of no choice. According to Share Mercy's
findings through (19) Land Governance Workshop conducted in 19 Townships of Ayarwaddy, the
peasants have five acres of farmland on average. So, the family if they decend from traditional
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 102
growers and have committed to continue growing crops and doing farming till life, they shall be
protected not to lose farmlands, regulate to use one acre from every five acre of farmland to grow any
plants or trees or making forest plot or livestock husbandary.
In Land Policy, land monopoly, holding the land vacant without access, or for getting high price, or
not implementing effectively due by the set regulations should include the clause to control and
prohibit them. The conflicts happening in the coutry-wise are related with the land and resource on
the land, therefore if there came gaps of land access and ownership between the capitalists and grass
root poor,there would be endless conflicts and disputes and to say short, it should prohibit the mass
acres of land holding by each individual and business group in National Land Law.
How the Land is Acquired
It should not, the Land Acquisition Act implies to any types of lands must be acquired if the State
Government wanted. There should have the different class of land acquisition based on level of
wealth group in land users _ it means the levels that can be easily acquired; not easily acquired; hardly
be acquired _ that kind of class divisions should be regulated in National Land Law. The farms using
by traditional family farmers in small-scale should be reserved as hardly be acquired farmlands.
In the team formation of land acquisition, the representatives of commity based organizationsand
peasant should include proportionally. By looking at land use title, the area of land needed should first
be announced and the collector group should suggest the location to acquire land. When the proposal
is taken into approval, the steps of land measurement with the approval of current land holder, giving
compensation for accident destruction in measuring the land and similar actions should be made to law
like 1894 Land Acquisition Act. The residents who are potential of the loss of lands should be
communicated about the land acquisition clearly, timely and precisely beforehand, giving the right of
appeal to defend the land loss. If the defender side has defeated at the court, the area choice of land
acquisition should be moved to next place.
If no alternative is found and this intended land is to be confiscated, land relocation of the same class
that gurantee that the land losers can do the same agriculture and that should be provided by collector
team. Instead of land compensation fee, relocation of land for compensation, crop compensation,
compensation for infrastructure, migration, social losses, and costs for house rehabilitation, fully. If
the land was confiscated for the purpose of the State or individual interests, the affected households
should be supported for many times award to rememdy their losses compared to the current life. For
example, the land loser in Thilawa Project got (1.5) million kyats whilst the next land user, UMFCCI
(Union of Myanmar Chamber of Commerce and Industry) officially announces to rent the land by 270
million kyats after some land preparations that causes the current farmers hurt their hearts. Whenit
does the opening ceremony, the residents were not invited nor did not get the chance to attend, and
they had to peek the show _ was also a tragedy.
In five Land Concession Cases of this paper, owing to the intervention of JICA (Japan International
Cooperation Agency), the local people were disseminated full information, getting chance in
consultative meetings. Such kind of practice should be carried on to anywhere, any time of land
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 103
concession. Provided that issuing the last cut-off date, to avoid the subsequent illegal beneficiary
enrolment is also very good practice and that kind of regulation should be included in National Land
By-law.
Besides that, all the lands belong to the State should not be consonant that the authorized departments
can confiscate the land accessed by the community, at any time and at any rate. The State is composed
of the people, so exploitation of the resources should prior benefit for the inhabitants living by.
Investors coming from far area, or the capitalists should be granted business only then the residents
approved. It shall be formulated only after addressing the quest of for whom the project means, the
residents welcomed project and it shall carry out happiness for most stakeholders.
How the Land is acquired
The Government should help mobilizing the community to organize the Community Watchdog to
oversee how the lands changed to use in other forms from farmland approved by the past junta and
current government are using and whether they are on properly operating as per the regulations, not
only recognizing but also supporting and encouraging should be committed. As well as recoginition of
this intitiatives, taking the findings, analysis and recommendations, the land disputes shall be resolved
in real-time according to the laws and regulations.
Nonetheless, land use for public or private interests should be free from negative impacts on
environment and society, and so local community based organizations and activists shall have the right
to do regular research and findings this research should be welcomed and accepted for advocacy by
the Government.
Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investiagtion
Commission
Although Union Parliament formed seven commissions by ten memers each, the actual working ratio
of all members of each group is (2:1), looking at Yangon and Ayarwaddy Region. Fortunately, the
working parliamentarians were from multi-parties rather than a single one. The remaining half of the
members, not only rare incidence of visiting to the affected people, but also people do not know where
they can meet such commission members. Particularly, the commission cannot overcome time,
money, expertise, capacity, and resources constraints. The complaint letters are not complete, it is
required civil support groups shall back in term of field visits and observation, legal analysis and case
filing. It was regretful the reports of land commissions were under resolution for a few by Central
Government; it is worse the company or individual holds the lands responded that they would not like
to return the lands and it was described as they said so in President Papers replied to the Union
Parliament _ it says the reports of the commissions do not much work and the status of the Parliament
is likely under one level down than the Government.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 104
Land Utilization Management Committeess and Land Management
Committees
Particularly, the recommendations made by the commission cannot influence the Township Land Use
Committees and Land Mangement Committees at all. In most situations, the experience of Share
Mercy says the members of parliament in the commission seldom meet the District Adminstrator and
they just meet the Township Administrators and suggests what should do. In fact, the decision power
of the Township Administration decends exactly from District Administration, why and what are the
constraints the commissions feel hesistant to meet the District level or meet Regional level directly and
give suggestions _ exists in an awkward question. To do check and balance and oversight to the
Regional Government is the responsibility of Regional Parliament but it has been overinfluence by the
Regional Government over Regional Parliament _ remarked Dr. Nyo Nyo Thin from Bahan
Constituent Assembly at 'Whether Conventional Politics or Non-conventional Politics makes more
public benefits' held on January 2015 in Taw Win Ninh Si Hall. Another Parliamentarian of
Tharboung Constituent Assembly stretches that the Regional Parliament led by the former speaker
could make more checks and balances but the current speaker is on attempt to restore the pass
achievements like to the former one. It is not only the capacity of MP, but also intertwined with
Constitution issue. It is because Regional Government structure is based on Parliament Democracy
unlike the Union Government which is based on Presidential Democracy.
The central government if they approve of resolution of inter-communal land disputes or communal
disputes against the company in the form of 'litigant court' led by an arbiter, there will be a lot of land
disputes solve out on the ground. Therefore, it should be seriously taken into consideration when the
National Land Law is formulated.
Besides that, the State has to take action against the investors who cannot operate instructed by
regulations for either Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands or Farmlands which is changed into the use of
other means should be reoccupied or the land returned should be leased back to the origniators _ to do
such things, to give land regrant the adopted regulations made from the Union is ascending from the
grassroot to central administration and again decends from central to grass root work is a real red tape
and it remains a governance issue so it disrupts the local department finds very labourous. The
instructions should prior to cut the case within the Regional Government.
Unawareness or misunderstanding the existing laws related to lands of Justice and Police Departments
dwells in one primary cause of disadvantage of rural farmers in land disputes. The period of land
holder right has not been clear due to the holder right disputes, or the land granted to the investors who
cannot operate with the proper way what the regulations said, and the land _ either Vacant, Fallow and
Virgin or Farmland transformed to use other purposes _ the claim of such holding must reach the State
back; in those instances, if the farmers step down in the land, the former holder sued the farmer
through the Police Department by the excuse of being the past grantee and by Penal Code, the court
has reacted acceptance of such sue cases and carry on investigations is a terrible law breach and
human rights violation. What is more, the court lengthen the period of investigation is really
merciless. Therefore, all in all, the law institutions should be empowered in term of capacity,
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 105
accountability and people centred _ and sort of behavioral change revolution should be functioned by
the State Government.
Post-resolution Updates
The Government work shall include documentation, impact monitoring, reviewing and learning
lessons after resolution of a land case. If and only if it happens, it shall be claimed marching towards
'Clean Government' and 'Good Governance' _ in practice. Or if the Government officials unwelcome
or avoid or come for show-off attending the discussion, training, forums, seminars and workshops held
by the civil society, it can be said the two terms are not truly belived and implementing but they were
used to attracts universal impression and show-off only. After all, the Government Officials should
pay visits to those events to meet the civil society and cultivate the true dialog, offer and bear the
criticisms can be the examples of moving towards 'Good Governance' and 'Clean Government'.
Among there are (14) States and Regions in Myanmar, only Ayarwaddy Region that holds and can
hold 'Accountability' workshops, interactively between the Regional Government and Civil Society
and to those events, led by the Prime Minister, his cabinets and Regional Departmental Officers
attended fully _ from the beginning to the end that enhances and help restoration of the long-lost
confidence, rapport formation, creation of dialog, shooting interactive counter questions and giving
remarks. Despite these advantages, the host civil society organization or grass root organization has to
give the questions or enquires in advance to the government, read the questions and the respondents
also read the answer _ moreover, the said organizations cannot have the chance to propose the
suggestions and bills like the Parliaments remains the challenging and cannot bring the participants'
full satisfaction. However, it is the good platform existed to dialogue between the government and
civil society, being interface, and can make building rapport and trust and that advantages bring winwin situations: therefore, the President should direct other Regional Government copy this and hold
'Vertical Accountability' _ which the Government Organizations promote their accountability towards
the public _ such fairs throughout the country.
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 106
Annex
Questionnaire used in the study
1. History of Land Holding
.1 What is the origin of the lands before establishing the farmlands?Who had actually established the
farmlands?
.2 Who utilized the farmland? For how long? How farmlands reached the hands of the affected
peasants?
.3 Did you pay for the land taxation regularly? For how low?
.4 What is the practice of Farmland Lease holding in the past?
.5How do VT Chairman and Land Record Dept. exercise the responsibility relating to peasants in the
past?
2.How the Land is acquired
.1 Who grabbed the farmlands?
.2 How the farmlands were grabbed?
.3 Why the farmlands were grabbed?
.4 Were you well informed before the land grabbing? If so, how?
.5How was the decision for the farmland concession made?
.6What is the process of resolving farmland concession?
.7How did the decision for the compensation?
3.How the Land is used after Acquisition
.1 Who was using the farmland after concession?
.2 How did the farmland holder use the land and how much fraction he used?
4.Union Parliament Land and Land Related Disputes Investigation
Commission
.1 Land and Land Related Dispute Committee deal the case?
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 107
.2 How do you investigate the Case? Who participated?
.3 What is the process of investigation and how much time do you take it?
.4 Does the committee inform the final status of the investigated cases to the related group of people?
.5 How do you recommend for giving Land Holder Right for the respective disputes?
.6 How do you recommend for compensation for the peasants?
5.Land Utilization Management Committees and Land Management
Committees
1. What is Land Utilization Management Committee? What kind of disputes do you deal?
.2How do you come to know that there are problems to solve?
.3How do you accept the case to resolve?
.4What is the process of solving this land dispute?
.5Who participated in the information collection, analysis to solve the land disputes?
.6 Who involved in decision making?
.7How do you consider social security for the affected peasants while making the decision and forth
coming action?
.8How do you recommend central Land Management Committee for giving Land Holder Right for the
respective disputes?
.9How do you give compensation for the peasants?
6. Post-resolution Updates
.1 Are there any changes after land disputes resolution? How does it affect peasant, land grabber,
village tract administrator, GAD, LRD, MPs in LLRDIC?
.2 How do you think after situation of land disputes decision bring, win-win solution or not? Why?
.3 How do you think the current Laws, By-laws, Orders and Instruction Notice consort with the current
land disputes? Why/ Why not?
Share Mercy _ 5 Case Studies
Page 108