Nepal’s Land Bill clears parliamentary committee despite opposition warnings of land commercialization

KATHMANDU: The Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, Cooperatives, and Natural Resources on Thursday passed the controversial Land Bill by majority vote, despite visible opposition and reservations from several political parties.

The bill, which addresses issues of landless citizens, squatters, unmanaged settlements, and land use classification, has ignited sharp political debate, with critics warning that it may open the door for land commercialization, policy corruption, and forest encroachment.

Opposition Walkout in Committee Meeting

During the meeting, lawmakers from the CPN (Maoist Centre) and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) rejected the bill and staged a walkout. Maoist lawmaker Rupa Soshi Chaudhary argued that the draft required further study and consultation, saying that passing it in haste would be “unjust.”

RSP lawmaker Ashok Chaudhary warned that the provisions could fuel land commercialization and demanded in-depth discussions before endorsement.

However, members from the ruling Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML pressed for quick passage. NC lawmaker Bir Bahadur Balayar defended the bill as a tool to curb unmanaged settlements, while UML lawmaker Surya Dhakal emphasized that it would implement constitutional guarantees of land distribution to the landless.

Political Tug-of-War Behind the Bill

Earlier, in a high-level meeting at Baluwatar, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli expressed dissatisfaction over delays, accusing Congress of slowing down the process despite having its amendment proposals included.

Indeed, amendments registered by NC general secretaries Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma were incorporated, particularly banning land plotting and sales of large estates such as the Giribandhu Tea Estate. Still, suspicion lingers within Congress ranks. Several lawmakers worry the bill might legitimize the sale of lands previously flagged by the Supreme Court as policy corruption cases.

Critics also allege that UML is using the bill to expand its political influence. Distribution of land to squatters in Tarai districts such as Kailali, Rupandehi, Dang, Jhapa, Banke, and Bardiya—where unmanaged settlements are concentrated—is expected to strengthen UML’s electoral position.

Adding to the controversy, Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) chair Upendra Yadav warned that the law could trigger mass deforestation in the Tarai, exacerbating environmental risks.

Bill Moves Forward But Challenges Remain

The bill will now move to the House of Representatives for endorsement before heading to the National Assembly. With both UML and NC holding majority seats, the government appears confident of passage. Yet, the challenge of making the legislation universally acceptable remains, especially as land issues are politically, socially, and environmentally sensitive.

According to the Land Problem Resolution Commission, Nepal currently has 1.129 million landless, squatters, and unmanaged settlers, underlining the urgency of reform.

Three Major Provisions of the Land Bill

House and Land Business, and Ownership Beyond Ceiling
Earlier amendments to the Land Act restricted individuals from holding land beyond the legal ceiling. Though ownership was permitted, selling such land was prohibited. The new bill allows such lands to be subdivided and sold with ministerial approval, even if local land-use councils have not classified them.

Congress fears this could benefit powerful landowners, particularly in cases like Giribandhu Tea Estate, raising risks of large-scale land plotting for profit.

Landless, Squatters, and Unmanaged Settlers
While the constitution guarantees one-time land allocation to landless Dalits and squatters, the new bill extends this to unmanaged settlers—on a fee basis. Congress lawmakers warned that this loophole could allow individuals who already own property elsewhere to exploit the provision, undermining its intent to serve only the most vulnerable.

Mapping of Forest Areas
The bill introduces mapping of forest zones, but remains silent on unused or bush-covered land. Congress raised suspicions that the government might use this gap to reclassify and distribute forest land, heightening concerns of deforestation and misuse of public land.