Kathmandu, October 28
The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) is facing criticism over a provision in the government’s new land ordinance that it had previously opposed during parliamentary deliberations, raising questions about the party’s consistency on public land protection.
The ordinance issued by President on October 13 includes a provision allowing certain land recorded as grazing grounds, traditional fairs, gathering places or markets during the initial land survey to be made available to landless Dalits, landless squatters and unorganised settlers under specified conditions.
The same provision had been proposed in a bill registered in the House of Representatives on May 6, 2025. At the time, RSP lawmaker Sobita Gautam, now the law minister and the party’s vice-chair, had registered an amendment seeking to prevent such land from being distributed for settlement.
Under her proposed amendment, land identified as public property would remain public, while people living on it would be provided alternative settlements elsewhere.
Gautam argued that areas historically recorded as grazing grounds, fairs, gathering places or markets were public assets with historical, social and cultural significance and therefore required appropriate protection.
However, the provision she had opposed has now been included in the ordinance in substantially the same form as the original bill.
Provision allows certain public land to be allocated
The amendment to Section 52B(a), Subsection 4(c), of the Land Act, 2021, concerns land that was recorded as grazing grounds, fairs, gathering places or markets during the initial land survey.
Under the provision, such land may be made available to landless Dalits, landless squatters or unorganised settlers if they had built houses or structures and occupied the land before the period specified in Section 52C, and the land is no longer being used for the purpose recorded during the initial survey.
The provision also requires the local government’s executive body to make a formal decision confirming that the land is no longer being used for its originally recorded purpose.
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives’ Agriculture, Cooperatives and Natural Resources Committee in September 2025. During the committee’s deliberations, RSP lawmaker Ashok Kumar Chaudhary had registered a three-point note of dissent, warning that some provisions could seriously affect the country’s land administration, ownership system and the fundamental objectives of land reform.
The government has now introduced the disputed provision through an ordinance.
Congress questions RSP’s consistency
Kamala Panta, parliamentary party leader of the Nepali Congress in the National Assembly, said the issue reflected a tendency among political parties to interpret the same matter differently depending on whether they were in government or in opposition.
“The main reason for this is the ideological deviation seen in the RSP leadership,” Panta told Onlinekhabar. “A wrong thing should be considered wrong whether one is in opposition or in government.”
Her criticism centres on the contrast between the RSP’s earlier opposition to the provision and its inclusion in the current ordinance.
Law minister defends the ordinance
Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sobita Gautam has defended the government’s decision, saying the ordinance aims to remove existing legal obstacles to resolving land-related problems and establish a systematic process for providing land to people who genuinely lack it.
In a statement on Facebook, Gautam rejected claims that the ordinance had been introduced to facilitate the misuse of government or public land.
She said people would not qualify for land as unorganised settlers merely because they had occupied government or public land after February 11, 2010.
Gautam also said existing legal provisions protecting actual forest areas, national parks and public land requiring conservation would remain in force.
Former commission member backs the amendment
A former member of the Land Problem Resolution Commission, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the amendment introduced through the ordinance was appropriate.
The former member argued that RSP leaders had opposed the provision when the bill was under consideration because they had not fully understood the issue.
“RSP leaders opposed the provision at the time without understanding it properly. It has now been incorporated into the ordinance through an amendment, which is welcome,” the former member said.
The contrasting positions have placed the spotlight on how the government intends to balance the settlement of genuine landless households with the protection of land historically designated for public use.
