The government has presented the ‘Bill to Amend Some Nepal Acts Related to Land, 2025’ in the House of Representatives.

Minister for Land Management, Cooperatives, and Poverty Alleviation Bala Ram Adhikari, who registered the bill at the federal parliament on May 6, tabled the bill in the House of Representatives for deliberations.

This is the same legislation which couldn’t be passed from Parliament when the Oli administration tried to introduce it through ordinance earlier this year. Also, President Ramchandra Paudel held the land-related ordinance while approving four other ordinances.

After holding it for four days, the President issued the land-related ordinance after Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli assured the head of state that he would address the concerns about certain provisions of the ordinance.

The Cabinet meeting on January 10 recommended to President Paudel the ‘Ordinance to Amend Certain Nepal Acts Related to Land, 2025’.

The President initially held back the ordinance because serious concerns were expressed about the provisions allowing for the distribution of land encroached upon in forest and conservation areas, which he insisted needed to be revised. The President issued it after Prime Minister Oli told him that the government would revise the provisions when replacing the ordinance by a regular bill.

However stakeholders involved in the process and observers said the government has made no substantive change in the clauses of the ordinance before forwarding it to Parliament as a regular bill.

The bill also has almost all the provisions mentioned in the ordinance, a leader of the Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal (JSP-Nepal) said.

The JSP-Nepal, which is not in the Cabinet despite giving Prime Minister Oli the vote of confidence during his floor test last year, stood against the ordinance, questioning its contents. The government couldn’t endorse the ordinance due to the JSP-Nepal’s reservation in the ordinance.

As the ruling coalition’s strength alone was not enough to pass the ordinance from the National Assembly without votes from the JSP-Nepal, the governing alliance had to withdraw it from the upper chamber though it enjoyed a comfortable majority in the House.

Leaders from the JSP-Nepal have alleged that apart from some minor differences, the current bill is identical to the ordinance. Claiming that the bill serves the interests of land mafia and brokers, leaders from opposition parties have described it as a case of policy-level corruption.

JSP-Nepal leader Raj Kishor Yadav said as there is no real difference between the ordinance and the bill, the party will not support even the new version. “We oppose this bill and urge the government to withdraw it,” Yadav stated.

Prakash Adhikari, another lawmaker from the party, echoed Yadav.

Also, Ganesh Prasad Bhatta, spokesperson for the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation admitted that there were no significant changes in the bill from the content of the ordinance issued in January.

“Earlier it was opposed to be brought as an ordinance bypassing Parliament,” Bhatta told the Post. “Now that it is put through Parliament, it is not necessary to make changes in the content.”

Experts in the land sector also said there is no notable difference between the land-related ordinance issued on January 10 and the land-related bill under consideration in the House.

Clause 52(b) is revised in the bill. The bill alters the provision on unregistered (ailani) land; land on the banks of rivers, streams or canals; land in high-risk areas, national parks or reserved areas, and that of park buffer zones.

The ordinance prevented the survey of unregistered land, which drew criticism, said Jagat Deuja, an expert in land management. Following questions over the provision that land in buffer zones could not be used, the bill has altered it. Other than this, the bill’s contents largely remain the same, Deuja said.

The ordinance made changes, allowing exceptions to landholding limits for real estate businesses, but maintained restrictions on selling land that exceeded the holding limit. It also allowed real estate developers to obtain approval to hold land beyond the limit, develop it within a specified time, and sell plots or housing units. However, land allocated for public use could not be subject to collateral or sold.

Additionally, the ordinance provided that land recorded during initial surveys as pasture, markets, riverbanks, forests, or shrublands, but which had long been inhabited by landless Dalits or squatters, could be granted ownership either free of cost or by collecting specified fees, depending on whether the inhabitants are classified as squatters or unmanaged settlers. Squatters are provided such land for free while the unmanaged settlers can retain the land by paying a certain amount as determined by the authorities.

The bill proposes amending Section 12 of the Land Act, 1964, to allow the sale of land exempted from holding limits. It states: “A company that has received permission to engage in real estate business may develop land within the limit specified by a formal notification, and may construct houses or plots and sell them per the prevailing laws.”

The bill clarifies that companies permitted to conduct real estate business can purchase land beyond the legal ceiling. However, there had been ambiguity about whether such land (beyond the ceiling) could be sold, and the bill seeks to eliminate that uncertainty.

This provision was also included in the ordinance issued by the President in January at the government’s recommendation. The ordinance had stated, “Previously, exceptions were granted for landholding ceilings for real estate businesses, but laws prohibiting the sale of land exceeding the limit have now been amended. Real estate developers may obtain approval to hold land exceeding the ceiling, develop it within the specified time, and sell plots or housing units,” the provision states.

Deuja says the government refuses to clear certain cases. If it had wanted transparency, it should have explicitly listed the names of the officially registered real estate businesses in the bill.

“For no more ambiguity, the government should have listed the authorised real estate businesses that are registered with the government in the bill and would come under the provision mentioned in the bill presented by the government,” Deuja said.

However, an officer at the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation said that mentioning the names of companies would be impractical, saying that new companies continue to be added in the growing real estate business. Naming the company in the bill would mean limiting their scope.

If a new business group comes up with a business proposal, they should be accommodated, ministry spokesperson Ganesh Prasad Bhatta argued.

Clause 12(f) of the bill presented by the government on Wednesday, titled ‘Special provision relating to exemption from limits for real estate business’, states that companies authorised to engage in real estate business are legally allowed to develop plots and build houses or residential units (apartments) for sale.

Advocate Om Prakash Aryal has doubts about the provision. He says the bill could be manipulated to the rescue of those involved in the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate.

Deuja, however, said that although one can remain cautious that the bill may be distorted or interpreted to one's benefit, the provision has no connection with the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate in Jhapa, which had earlier tried to swap its land with plots elsewhere in the province.

“Since the businesses associated with Giri Bandhu Tea Estate are not registered as real estate companies, this bill does not facilitate them in any way,” Deuja further said. “First, they are not real estate developers; second, when operating the Giri Bandhu Tea Estate, they never registered themselves as such.”

Bhatta echoed Deuja.

The Supreme Court had issued a mandamus order to the government to manage the swap or transfer of land exceeding the legal ceiling. The court had also directed the government to reclaim land in its name if it has not been used for the purpose stated under the exemption conditions, has been used for other purposes, or has been left barren.

A constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice Bishwambhar Prasad Shrestha and Justices Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada, Prakash Man Singh Raut, Sapana Pradhan Malla, and Sushmalata Mathema issued the order. The bench ruled that the land registered under Giri Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt Ltd in Jhapa must be brought under government ownership through legislation. This judgment, delivered on February 7, 2024, relates to land ceiling regulations.

A writ petition was filed at the Supreme Court in 2021 after the government had approved the exchange of 343 bighas, 19 katthas, and 12 dhurs of land in favour of Giri Bandhu Tea Estate. The court then annulled the government decision through its order.

Though the bill envisions an exemption of land limits for real estate businesses, for Aryal, “The land exempted from the ceiling cannot be fragmented and commercialised, as doing so would be contrary to the constitution and court rulings.”