Latest news with #RevenueCode
Bangkok Post
16-07-2025
- Business
- Bangkok Post
How much do Thai monks earn per month?
Buddhist monks in Thailand receive monthly food allowances called "Nittayapat" (นิตยภัต), with amounts varying according to their ecclesiastical rank, reflecting a centuries-old tradition of royal patronage that continues under government administration today. The Nittayapat system represents food support that His Majesty the King provides to monks and novices. Historically, Thai monarchs demonstrated their Buddhist faith by offering meals, requisites, and annual stipends to the clergy. During the reign of King Rama I, the system was reformed from annual payments to monthly allowances, with amounts structured according to monastic hierarchy. The Department of Religious Affairs under the Ministry of Education currently administers the programme, distributing funds annually to support religious activities including administration, governance, religious education, Buddhist propagation and public welfare services. Whilst monks with ecclesiastical titles receive monthly Nittayapat similar to salaries, these allowances are not classified as taxable income. The payments fall under Section 42 (10) of the Revenue Code as "income received from maintenance according to moral duty in accordance with customary traditions", making them tax exempt. This tax exemption applies specifically to Nittayapat and ceremonial offerings (kathin) from lay devotees. However, should monks invest their donations to generate returns - such as earning bank interest or business profits - such income becomes taxable. Similarly, monks receiving salaries from teaching positions at Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University must pay tax on those earnings under Section 40(1) of the Revenue Code. The allowance system aims to ensure monks can focus on their spiritual duties whilst maintaining basic living standards, continuing Thailand's long tradition of state support for Buddhist institutions. Here are the monthly food allowances for monks according to their ecclesiastical rank: Somdej Phra Sangharaja Somdej Phra Sangharaja (Supreme Patriarch) - 34,200 baht per month Somdej Phra Racha Khana - 27,400 Somdej Phra Racha Khana of the Second Class - 20,500 Phra Racha Khana Phra Racha Khana of the Dharma Class - 13,700 Phra Racha Khana of the Deba Class - 10,300 Phra Racha Khana of the Raja Class - 6,900 Phra Racha Khana of the Saman Yok Class - 4,100 Phra Racha Khana of the Saman Yok Class - 3,800 Phra Kru Palad Phra Racha Khana Phra Kru Palad Phra Racha Khana - 3,800 Phra Kru Palad, Phra Racha Khana of the Second Class - 3,400 Phra Kru Palad, Phra Racha Khana of the Dharma Class - 2,700 Phra Kru Phra Kru of the First Class, Somdej Phra Sangharaja Ecclesiastical Orders - 3,100 Phra Kru of the Second Class, Somdej Phra Sangharaja Ecclesiastical Orders - 2,700 Phra Kru Sanyabat (Royal Monastery) Phra Kru Sanyabat of the First Class Royal Monastery - 3,800 Phra Kru Sanyabat of the Second Class Royal Monastery - 3,400 Phra Kru Sanyabat of the Third Class Royal Monastery - 3,100 Phra Kru Sanyabat (District Officers) Phra Kru Sanyabat, Ecclesiastical District Officer of the Special Class - 3,800 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Ecclesiastical District Officer of the First Class - 3,400 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Ecclesiastical District Officer of the Second Class - 3,100 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Vice Ecclesiastical District Officer of the First Class - 3,100 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Vice Ecclesiastical District Officer of the Second Class - 2,700 Phra Kru Sanyabat (Commune Chiefs) Phra Kru Sanyabat, Ecclesiastical Commune-Chief of the First Class - 3,100 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Ecclesiastical Commune-Chief of the Second Class - 2,700 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Ecclesiastical Commune-Chief of the Third Class - 2,500 Phra Kru Sanyabat (Royal Monastery Staff) Phra Kru Sanyabat, Assistant Abbot of the Special Class Royal Monastery or equivalent - 3,400 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Deputy Abbot of the First Class Royal Monastery - 3,400 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Deputy Abbot of the Second Class Royal Monastery - 3,100 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Assistant Abbot of the First Class Royal Monastery or equivalent - 3,100 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Assistant Abbot of the Second Class Royal Monastery or equivalent - 2,700 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Deputy Abbot of the Third Class Royal Monastery - 2,700 Phra Kru Sanyabat (Private Monastery) Phra Kru Sanyabat, Abbot of the First Class Private Monastery - 2,700 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Abbot of the Second Class Private Monastery - 2,500 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Abbot of the Third Class Private Monastery - 2,200 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Deputy Abbot of the Private Monastery - 1,800 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Assistant Abbot of the Private Monastery - 1,800 Phra Kru Sanyabat (Secretarial Positions) Phra Kru Sanyabat, Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Regional Governor - 3,400 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Secretary to the Vice Ecclesiastical Regional Governor - 3,100 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Provincial Governor - 3,100 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Secretary to the Ecclesiastical District Officer - 2,200 Phra Kru Sanyabat, Secretary to the Vice Ecclesiastical District Officer - 1,800 Ecclesiastical Governors and Officials The Ecclesiastical Regional Governor - 17,100 The Vice Ecclesiastical Regional Governor - 13,700 The Ecclesiastical Provincial Governor - 10,300 The Vice Ecclesiastical Provincial Governor - 4,500 Sangha Council and Court Officials The Sangha Supreme Council - 23,900 The Chief Superintendent of the Ecclesiastical Courts - 23,900 Academic Office Heads Head of the Royal Pali Studies Office - 17,100 Head of the Royal Dhamma Studies Office - 17,100 Secretaries to High Officials The Secretary to the Supreme Patriarch - 10,300 The Secretary to the Chief Superintendent of the Ecclesiastical Courts - 3,800 The Secretary to the Vice Ecclesiastical Provincial Governor - 2,700 The Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commune-Chief - 1,200 Parian Graduates Graduates of Parian Nine - 5,500Graduates of Parian Seven and Eight - 5,200 Graduates of Parian Five and Six (The Abbot of the First Class Royal Monastery) - 4,800 Graduates of Parian Four (The Abbot of the Second Class Royal Monastery) - 4,500 Graduates of Parian Three (The Abbot of the Third Class Royal Monastery) - 4,100 Abbots The Abbot of the First Class Royal Monastery - 4,800 The Abbot of the Second Class Royal Monastery - 4,500 The Abbot of the Third Class Royal Monastery - 4,100 Abbot - 2,500
Hindustan Times
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC: Proceedings not maintainable under Damage to Public Property Act
: The Allahabad high court has reiterated that proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are not maintainable against illegal encroachment on gram sabha land. The same can be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction, the court has held. Quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against the applicant Brahmdutt Yadav, Justice Saurabh Srivastava relied on the earlier decision of his coordinate bench in the Munshi Lal and another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another case. In that case, it was held that 'as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to gram sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute, as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court.' In the present case, the lekhpal lodged an FIR at the Aurai police station of Bhadohi district against the applicant under Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging that upon survey, he had found that the gram sabha land, which is a public property, had been encroached on by farmers nearby. It was alleged that there was damage to public property. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed and summons were issued, which were challenged by the applicant before the high court. During the court proceedings, the counsel for applicant argued that the issue regarding encroachment was to be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction. Taking note of the judgment in Munshi Lal and another, the court observed that the purpose of the 1984 Act was to 'curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion.' The court, in its decision dated April 15, held that the continuation of process under the 1984 Act against the applicant was abuse of the process of law and the court quashed the same.
Hindustan Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Horses with luggage sent to Kedarnath on trial basis, ban continues due to virus outbreak
The Allahabad High Court ruled that proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, are not applicable for illegal encroachments on gram sabha land, which should be addressed under the Revenue Code, 2006. The court quashed the case against Brahmdutt Yadav, emphasizing that such matters should be resolved by revenue courts, not criminal proceedings.
Hindustan Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Crowd mismanagement': Report on Goa temple stampede that killed 6 submitted
The Allahabad High Court ruled that proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, are not applicable for illegal encroachments on gram sabha land, which should be addressed under the Revenue Code, 2006. The court quashed the case against Brahmdutt Yadav, emphasizing that such matters should be resolved by revenue courts, not criminal proceedings.
Hindustan Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Proceedings under PDPP Act not maintainable against illegal encroachment: Allahabad HC
Prayagraj , The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 were not maintainable against illegal encroachment on gram sabha land and the same can be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction. While quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against the applicant, Brahmdutt Yadav, Justice Saurabh Srivastava relied on the earlier decision of his coordinate bench in Munshi Lal and another vs. state of Uttar Pradesh and another, where it was held that "as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute, as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court". In the present case, Lekhpal lodged an FIR against the applicant under Section 3/5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging that upon survey, he found that the gram sabha land, which was public property, had been encroached upon by nearby farmers. It was alleged that there was damage to public property. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed and summons were issued, which were challenged by the applicant before the Allahabad High Court. During the court proceedings, the counsel for the applicant urged non-application of mind by the magistrate concerned while issuing the summoning order. It was argued that the issue regarding encroachment was to be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction. Taking note of the judgment in Munshi Lal and another, the court observed that the purpose of the 1984 Act was to "curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion". The court in its decision dated April 15 and uploaded recently held that the continuation of the process under the 1984 Act against the applicant was abuse of the process of law and the court quashed the same.
