The bill in the current form fails to achieve a coherent balance between environmental protection and the needs of landless and marginalized communities as its contradictory provisions risk undermining both objectives unless carefully revised.
The Parliament did not endorse the land reform ordinance when the government led by Prime Minister KP Oli attempted to introduce it through an ordinance earlier this year. President Ram Chandra Paudel held the land-related ordinance while approving four other ordinances at that time. 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 Balaram Adhikari, who registered the bill at the federal parliament on May 6, tabled the bill in the House of Representatives for deliberation. The bill proposes to amend various clauses of the present Land Reform Act, the National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act, and the Forest Act.
According to media reports, Jagat Deuja, an expert in land management, has mentioned that the bill has altered the provision that land in buffer zones could not be used. Other than this, the bill’s contents largely remain the same. Similarly, many other MPs were of the same view. While the clause of the bill is under rigorous deliberation in the Agriculture, Cooperative, and Natural Resources Committee of the HoR, this article explores the lacunae in the bill and its potential to bring meaningful reform.
The background of this bill raises serious concerns about constitutional morality. After facing backlash and rejection from Parliament, the ordinance was brought back as a bill under a different title but without the necessary amendments.
Article 114(2)(a) of the Constitution of Nepal states that an ordinance must be tabled in both Houses of the Federal Parliament, and if not passed by both Houses, it shall cease to be effective. The spirit of this provision is to uphold parliamentary sovereignty; the idea that Parliament, as the representative of the sovereign people, is the ultimate law-making authority.
An ordinance is meant for situations of genuine urgency, a point still debatable in the context of when this law was introduced. Even then, any such law must undergo parliamentary scrutiny to reflect the will of the people’s representatives. Once rejected, the ordinance ceases to have legal force.
Reintroducing essentially the same provisions through another bill, simply under a new title, undermines this constitutional framework. It overshadows the expressed decision of Parliament and harms the respect for both the constitutional process and democratic accountability.
No limitation to beauty
The government has made the list public, detailing the provisions in the proposed amendment bill and the rationale behind this proposal.
Under the first provision, clause 2(a) of the act to amend 12(f) of the bill, the proposed bill has removed the requirement for the qualified institutions or company to submit the DPR and Environment Study Report to hold the land above the ceiling, with a reason that the bill seeks to address the conundrum encircling whether the companies that have been permitted to work as a real estate can buy property above the ceiling or cannot sell and transfer such property.
Not only does the reason given by the government sound suspicious, but none of the proposed amendments seems to comply with the reason given. The reason and the proposed amendment are not in consonance. The stated purpose is simply to clarify whether real estate companies can sell land they are permitted to buy. The new provision adds multiple new exemptions and privileges, such as allowing land ceiling exemptions and bypassing prior DPR/EIA requirements. The previous clause required DPR and EIA before holding excess land. Removing that safeguard has nothing to do with clarifying sales permission. The amendment has shifted its intent from clarification to deregulation. If the goal was to “remove doubt” about sales, the amendment would not have so many clauses rewritten to weaken oversight and facilitate easier sales and land transactions for certain companies.
Similarly, another provision 2(c), to amend section 52(b) of the Land Reform Act, mentions that the landless Dalits and landless squatters residing in areas like riversides, national parks, forest areas, or any such risk-prone areas would be managed to shift their place to somewhere safe. The rationale behind this seems very noble as it seeks to create a clear legal obligation to arrange alternative housing for landless Dalits and landless squatters living in environmentally sensitive or hazardous areas. If this amendment proposal is seen in isolation, by requiring relocation from risky areas such as riverbanks, flood zones, and landslide prone zones, it seems to reduce the vulnerability of the people residing in these areas to natural disasters and promote public safety.
The proposed amendment, if seen separately, appears to serve an important environmental purpose to prevent human encroachment into ecologically fragile areas such as national parks, forest zones, and the peripheries of water bodies. This restriction plays a critical role in biodiversity conservation, maintaining ecological balance, and ensuring long-term environmental sustainability. By limiting human interference, the law safeguards natural habitats, mitigates threats to endangered species, and preserves ecosystems for future generations and also the threat to human life because of human-animal conflict and natural calamities.
However, the amendment also contains another provision that introduces significant complexity. In its proposed revision to Section 3(b) of the National Park and Wildlife Protection Act, the bill allows for a one-time removal of land from forest or national park designation through “remapping” if landless Dalits, squatters, or unmanaged settlers have been residing in the area for a long period. This reclassification would make it legally possible to grant them ownership rights within what is currently designated as protected or forest land, including buffer zones. The government’s stated intention may be to address a long-standing social and humanitarian challenge; regularizing settlements that appear on maps as forested land but, in reality, may be covered with shrubs, degraded vegetation, or other non-forest forms. On the surface, this seems like a practical step toward resolving land tenure disputes and providing security to marginalized communities.
However, the amendment lacks a clear legal or scientific standard for determining when and how such remapping should occur. Without explicit criteria such as ecological surveys, habitat assessments, or biodiversity impact studies, the provision risks becoming arbitrary. This absence of safeguards makes it possible to reclassify ecologically sensitive land without adequate environmental justification, undermining the conservation principles that the other part of the amendment seeks to uphold.
Therefore, the contradiction is at its peak. One amendment effectively states: “You must relocate people away from ecologically sensitive areas.” Another says: “You may reclassify the same land and allow people to remain there.” Such inconsistency could weaken the entire protective framework for sensitive ecosystems. If the government retains broad powers to reclassify such land for settlement without a proper environmental evaluation, the very rationale behind prohibiting settlements in these areas is diluted.
Also, the ever-pressing issue of human–wildlife conflict in buffer zones adds urgency to this concern. Across Nepal, reports of livestock loss and human fatalities in buffer zones are frequent. Allowing settlements to remain in or expand into buffer zones without proper scientific assessment could intensify these conflicts, placing both human and animal lives at greater risk. Addressing the issue of landless Dalits and squatters is a necessary social goal that has required efforts for a long time. Yet, social justice must be pursued in harmony with ecological balance.
In its current form, the bill creates a contradiction between the two laws themselves. Under the principle of harmonious construction, courts are expected to interpret conflicting provisions in a way to preserve the purpose and effect of both. This interpretive principle ensures that laws function cohesively, avoiding unnecessary repeal or negation of one provision by another.
However, in this case, the objectives of the two clauses are mutually exclusive. One clause directs the removal of settlements from protected areas, while the other legitimizes their retention by reclassifying the land. Without a clear explanatory clause specifying the type of land eligible for reclassification, such as degraded areas, non-forest shrub land, or land of low ecological value, these provisions cannot operate in harmony. If applied as written, one provision has to lose its effect: If the relocation requirement prevails, the reclassification clause becomes meaningless. If reclassification is allowed without any prerequisites to be followed, it makes the relocation requirement lose its practical force. This, therefore, undermines the very essence of harmonious interpretation. Instead of complementary provisions serving distinct but compatible purposes, the law sets up a zero-sum choice between environmental protection and settlement rights. Moreover, such ambiguity invites inconsistent application of the law. Different authorities could interpret the provisions in conflicting ways. This inconsistency deteriorates legal certainty, weakens public trust, and opens the door for selective application based on political or administrative preferences rather than objective legal standards. To preserve the integrity of the law, there should be a clear definitional clause identifying the exact categories of land eligible for reclassification and objective criteria for decision-making, backed by scientific and ecological assessments.
For the amendment to truly balance human rights with environmental sustainability, there is need to define strict scientific criteria for remapping, supported by ecological survey and ensure independent review before any reclassification of protected areas. The amendment reflects a tension between two legitimate policy goals, protecting the environment and providing land to the landless. Without careful refinement, however, it risks undermining both.
The “Bill to Amend Some Nepal Acts Related to Land, 2025” undoubtedly addresses important and long-standing issues in land management, poverty alleviation, and the protection of vulnerable communities. The government’s effort to bring such a wide-ranging reform package to Parliament reflects a genuine intention to balance social justice with economic development. However, as with any far-reaching legislation, clarity and internal consistency are essential to ensure that the law operates effectively, avoids interpretive conflicts, and delivers the intended benefits to those it seeks to empower, especially landless Dalits, squatters, and marginalized groups.
With thoughtful refinement during the parliamentary committee process, the legislation can emerge as a coherent, principled, and practical framework, one that both upholds constitutional values and serves the real interests of the communities it is designed to uplift.
(The author is a fourth-year BALLB student at Purbanchal University.)
