- Nepal’s new land ordinance allows specific public lands, such as grazing grounds, to be distributed to landless Dalits and squatters under local government oversight.
- Law Minister Sovita Gautam faces scrutiny for supporting a provision she previously opposed, sparking debate over the Rastriya Swatantra Party’s political consistency.
- Critics demand transparency and environmental safeguards to prevent the loss of public assets while addressing the complex needs of Nepal’s landless population.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal’s latest land ordinance has brought an old policy debate back into focus: how can the government provide land to people who genuinely need it without putting public property at risk?
The question has taken on a political dimension because a provision included in the ordinance was previously opposed by Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker Sovita Gautam, who is now the Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and the party’s vice-chairperson.
The ordinance, issued by President Ramchandra Paudel on October 13, 2026, allows certain land recorded as grazing grounds, fairgrounds or marketplaces during the initial land survey to be made available to eligible landless Dalits, landless squatters and informal settlers. The provision applies under specific conditions, including the period of occupation and a formal decision by the local government that the land is no longer being used for its recorded purpose.
Gautam had earlier proposed that such land should remain public property, even if it was no longer being used for its original purpose. She argued that people occupying the land should instead be provided with alternative housing.
The difference between her earlier position and the government’s current policy has raised questions about the RSP’s consistency. But the debate goes beyond the party’s political stance. It also highlights the challenges Nepal faces in managing land, addressing long-standing landlessness and protecting resources needed by local communities.
A Change in Position That Needs an Explanation
The provision first appeared in the Bill to Amend Certain Nepalese Laws Relating to Land, registered in the House of Representatives on May 6, 2025.
At the time, Gautam registered an amendment seeking to remove the proposed provision. She argued that grazing grounds, fairgrounds and marketplaces are public assets with historical, social and cultural importance and should remain protected as such.
The ordinance now includes the provision she had opposed.
Political parties can change their positions after reviewing a policy or facing practical challenges in government. A change of position does not automatically mean that a policy is wrong. However, when a party adopts a proposal it previously rejected, it should explain what has changed and why the new approach is considered necessary.
Gautam has defended the ordinance, saying it aims to remove legal barriers to resolving land problems and establish a clear process for providing land to genuine landless people. She has also said that existing protections for forests, national parks and public land requiring conservation will remain in place.
Those assurances explain the government's stated intention. Whether the safeguards will work effectively will depend on how the rules are applied and how decisions are monitored.
Public Land Is Not Necessarily Unused Land
At the centre of the debate is a distinction that matters for land management: land that is not being used for its original purpose is not necessarily land that has lost its public value.
A grazing ground may be used only during certain seasons.
A marketplace may operate on particular days.
An open space may be important for community gatherings or future public facilities.
If authorities judge land only by its current activity, they may overlook the needs of the wider community. On the other hand, refusing to review outdated land records can also make it harder to resolve genuine cases of long-term occupation.
The ordinance makes the local government’s executive body responsible for formally confirming that the land is no longer being used for the purpose recorded during the original survey. This gives local authorities an important role, but it also makes transparency essential.
Before land is allocated, authorities should examine historical records, current use, future community needs and any environmental concerns. Residents who rely on the land should have an opportunity to raise objections. Clear criteria and a review process are also needed to reduce the risk of inconsistent decisions or political influence.
Without these safeguards, a policy intended to resolve landlessness could create fresh disputes over ownership and access to public resources.
Landlessness Needs a Broader Solution
For families without secure land rights, legal ownership can provide stability and reduce the fear of eviction. It can also help them plan for the future and invest in their homes or livelihoods.
However, land distribution alone cannot solve every problem associated with poverty and insecure housing.
A family may receive a plot but still lack drinking water, sanitation, roads, schools, health services and employment opportunities. Agricultural land may offer little benefit if it is unsuitable for cultivation or if farmers lack irrigation and access to markets.
A lasting solution must therefore connect land allocation with housing, infrastructure and livelihood support.
The government must also ensure that land goes to people who meet the legal criteria. Long-term occupation by itself should not be treated as proof that an applicant qualifies for ownership.
The process needs reliable records, clear eligibility rules and checks to distinguish genuinely landless households from those who already own property or are seeking to benefit from public land.
Land reform should improve the lives of disadvantaged people without creating opportunities for those with greater resources or political influence to benefit unfairly.
Environmental Protection Must Be Part of Land Policy
Land decisions also have consequences for Nepal’s environment and public safety.
Some areas are vulnerable to floods, landslides and riverbank erosion. Others are important for forests, water systems, agriculture or community use. Allocating land without considering these factors can create long-term problems for both residents and the state.
Granting ownership does not make an unsafe site suitable for housing. Nor does a change in land use remove the environmental value of a forest, wetland or river corridor.
The government should therefore link land allocation with land-use planning, environmental assessments and disaster-risk information.
Where a settlement is unsafe, relocation may be necessary. But families should not simply be moved elsewhere without secure housing, access to essential services and a realistic way to earn a living.
A sound land policy must balance the needs of people who lack property with the need to protect the natural resources on which communities depend.
Local Decisions Need Public Scrutiny
The ordinance places significant importance on decisions by local governments. Their knowledge of local settlements and land use can help identify genuine cases, but local decisions must also be open to scrutiny.
Authorities should explain why a particular parcel qualifies for allocation and publish relevant information about its recorded status and current use. Affected communities should be able to challenge decisions, and disputed cases should receive independent review.
Coordination between local governments, land revenue offices, survey offices and environmental authorities is also important. Inaccurate or outdated records can make it difficult to establish the legal status of land and may lead to competing claims.
These measures would help ensure that land is allocated on the basis of evidence rather than political pressure or administrative convenience.
Political Criticism and the Government's Defence
Kamala Panta, leader of the Nepali Congress parliamentary party in the National Assembly, criticised the RSP for taking a different position after entering government.
“The main reason is the ideological deviation seen in the RSP leadership,” Panta told Onlinekhabar.
She argued that a position considered wrong in opposition should not be defended simply because a party has come to power.
The bill had also faced objections from within the RSP. In August–September 2025, after the Agriculture, Cooperative and Natural Resources Committee of the House of Representatives passed it, RSP lawmaker Ashokkumar Chaudhary registered three points of dissent. He warned that some provisions could have serious effects on land administration, ownership arrangements and the principles of land reform.
A former member of the Land Problem Resolution Commission, speaking anonymously to Onlinekhabar, defended the provision. The former member argued that RSP leaders had opposed it without fully understanding the issue and welcomed its inclusion in the ordinance.
These are competing political assessments, not proof that the policy is either right or wrong. The substance of the ordinance must be judged on its legal provisions, the safeguards it provides and the results of its implementation.
The RSP should nevertheless explain why its position has changed. If the government believes the provision is necessary, it should also show how it will address the concerns raised when the party opposed it.
The Test Is Whether the Policy Works Fairly
Nepal’s land problem has persisted through successive governments and repeated efforts to identify eligible households and resolve disputes. The latest ordinance may provide another route to addressing some of those cases, but its success will depend on how fairly and transparently it is implemented.
The government needs to protect public land that communities still require, identify genuine landless households and prevent improper transfers. It must also consider housing, livelihoods, environmental risks and local development when deciding how land should be used.
For the RSP, the issue is also one of political accountability. Its earlier opposition and current defence of the provision call for a clear explanation, not merely a statement that the ordinance is intended to help landless people.
Ultimately, land management cannot be reduced to a choice between distributing land and preserving it. Nepal needs a system that protects public resources while giving people who genuinely lack land a fair chance to secure a home and a livelihood.
The success of the ordinance should be measured not by political claims, but by whether it provides fair access to land, protects the public interest and produces lasting solutions for the people it is meant to help.
