21 August, Kathmandu. With the intention of moving risky settlements, the government is bringing 'Bill 2083 to amend some Nepal Acts related to land'.
Through this bill prepared by the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration, the 64-year-old Land (Examination) Act 2019 and the 62-year-old Land Act 2021 are being amended. If the proposed bill is converted into an Act, the provisions of Guthi Sansthan Act 2033, Property Act 2034 and Land Use Act 2076 will also be amended.
A new provision is proposed in Section 52B of the Land Act 2021 for the plan to relocate hazardous settlements.
Where it is said, "...the landless Dalits or landless Sukum residents who are living on the banks of rivers, banks of Taltalaiya, national parks, reserves, forest areas, within the limits of roads or other risky places should be arranged for accommodation elsewhere."
It has been proposed as a binding arrangement that 'must be arranged'.
The government believes that after such a system is converted into law and implemented, it will help in the goal of sustainable development and climate adaptation. It is said in the bill, 'The right to housing will be ensured and the goal of sustainable development will be achieved and supported by the arrangement of systematic residence.'
The issue of giving land to landless Dalits is in the constitution itself. But according to the constitution, this community has not been able to get land.
Article 37 of the Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to suitable housing. But the landless Sukum residents have not been able to enjoy this fundamental right.
They have not been able to get the land.
Landless Sukumvasi are people who do not have any land in their name and do not have their own house or safe place to live.
According to the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration, the landless are being viewed in two ways.
First: Those who do not have any arable land or residential property in their ownership or name.
Second: Those who do not have their own permanent home to live in. And, they are living temporarily on government or public land. Or, for a long time, they have been living by making small huts on the banks of the river (Bagar), vacant government land, and near the forest.
The previous government also provided red parts to the people of Sukum. But there are still a large number of Sukum residents.
According to the latest report of the Land Problem Solution Commission, there are 1 million 96 thousand 670 applications from squatters and landless unorganized residents. Out of this, there are 87 thousand 995 landless Dalits, 166 thousand 60 landless Sukum residents and 842 thousand 615 landless squatters.
However, there has not been a separate detailed study on whether the places where the landless Sukum residents are living are risky or not. This has not happened even in terms of places where citizens are living across the country. In this background, the government is about to introduce a bill with the intention of shifting the risky settlements.
Land only after identification
Although the proposed bill seeks to advance the concept of shifting hazardous settlements, it has not brought a detailed plan.
The bill does not provide a detailed plan on who will determine the identification of risky locations, where the settlements will be relocated, how land will be available for this, and how houses, livelihoods and infrastructure will be managed when the residences are relocated.
However, in the future, it is proposed to provide land to Sukum residents only after identifying the risks. According to this, when providing land, it is first identified whether it is a risky place or not. If it is a dangerous place, the land of such a place will not be given for residence.
Such provision is in section 3 of the bill. It amends Section 52B of the existing Land Act 2021. Where there is a matter of providing land to Sukum residents. Here, a new arrangement is proposed to add a provision not to provide land in risky locations.
It is said in the bill, 'public land, river, stream or canal bank land, land inhabited in risky places, national park or reserve land, forest land currently covered with trees and land within road boundaries will not be provided.'
However, at the time of the surveyor, if they have been building a house for at least 10 years in the land where Gauchar, Haat, Hatghat or market is mentioned in the regional surveyor's book or in the Lagat, then Lalpurja will be distributed.
It is further stated in the bill, "When such land is first surveyed, there will be no hindrance in providing such land to landless Dalits, landless Sukum residents or unorganized residents if it is written with a written decision of the executive body of the local level that there is currently unused behora land in the Virah Mahal of the regional surveyor's book or as mentioned in the appendices."
In the proposed bill, there is a provision to form a committee or working group at the union and district level to work on these matters after the law is made.
For this, Section 52C1 has been added after Section 52C of the Land Act 2021. Where it is said, "...for the purpose of providing land to landless Dalits and landless Sukum residents and for the purpose of managing unsettled residents in accordance with Section 52C, the Government of Nepal may form a committee or task force at the central and district levels."
For the purpose of providing land, such a committee or task force can identify and collect landless Dalits, landless Sukum residents and unorganized residents, identify the land, conduct on-site studies and collect land and provide land after collecting evidence.
The committee or task force will also resolve the issues related to the ownership or registration of lands distributed by the various commissions or task forces formed in the past according to the decision of the Government of Nepal, etc.
It is hereby stated that the work, duties and rights and term of office of the chairman and members of such committee or working group shall be as prescribed.
That is to say, according to the bill, the committee or task force formed after the enactment of the law can be assigned the authority to work on risk identification, site selection for rehabilitation and the process of providing land and management of necessary housing and infrastructure after relocation.
However, the bill does not propose to clarify whether or not the right to identify risky locations will be given to the committee or task force in the original act.
Also, since this subject has come to the stage of drafting the bill, the government will be able to add more clarity and necessary provisions in the bill based on the suggestions given by the common citizens and stakeholders.
According to the Legislation Act, the prepared bill has been released for public opinion on August 17. In this notification, it is asked to give opinion/suggestions within seven days.
Based on the opinions/suggestions received, the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration makes necessary amendments and sends it to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The Ministry of Law will evaluate the bill legally. The Ministry of Law will also work for clarity in the provisions and plans in the Bill.
After that, the bill returns to the Ministry of Land Management. Again the bill goes to the Ministry of Finance. After the approval of the Ministry of Finance, the Minister of Land Management takes the Bill to the Council of Ministers. After approval by the Council of Ministers, it is registered in the Parliament. After it is passed by both houses of the Federal Parliament, it goes to the President and after the approval by the President, it becomes a law and goes into implementation.
Officials of the Ministry of Lands say that there will be necessary clarity in this process of law making.
The proposed bill also covers matters such as distribution of rights to local governments in land-related work. It is said that registration and other tasks will be done at the local level.
By doing this, it is written in the bill that the time and expenses of the service users will be saved and service delivery will be facilitated.
Why is risk identification necessary?
The land related bill was also introduced in the previous term of the House of Representatives. At that time, it was tried to address the issue of landless Dalits, Sukum residents and unorganized residents.
The then Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee under the House of Representatives debated and passed the bill. But with the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 27 August, the bill became automatically inactive.
This time again, the government is about to bring an amendment bill related to land. This time, as an additional provision than the previous time, the bill has been prepared with the provision that those living in risky places should be arranged for accommodation elsewhere.
Ashok Kumar Choudhary, chairman of the current Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee under the House of Representatives, says that there is a need for a policy to identify risky places and relocate people in such places.
"It is the constitutional responsibility of the state to protect the life and property of the citizens by identifying the risky places," he says.
However, he urged that risk identification and resettlement relocation should be based on scientific basis, transparent standards and the fundamental rights of citizens, "especially the landless, slum dwellers and citizens of weak economic conditions should not be further displaced or landless in the name of removing them from risky places."
He feels that the state should not take citizens out of one risk and put them in another risk and should move forward with a policy of relocation with a clear guarantee of safe and sustainable residence, rehabilitation and resettlement.
According to Chaudhary, when the government brings a bill in this regard, the parliament will look at it from all angles.
He says, 'Parliament should not only look at the purpose of the bill brought by the government, but also seriously look at how it protects the rights of citizens and how it is implemented in practice.'
Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee Choudhary adds, "The system of moving risky settlements can be positive in itself, but the law should be clear enough about who will determine the risky location and on what basis, where to rehabilitate citizens, how to provide land and how to arrange housing, infrastructure and livelihood."
Choudhary was also an MP in the previous term of the House of Representatives. He recalled that at that time, when discussing the land related bill, he disagreed on the basis that any arrangement that weakens the constitutional and legal rights of the landless and squatters cannot be accepted.
On August 6, 2082, the Agriculture, Cooperative and Natural Resources Committee under the House of Representatives passed this bill related to land. (It could not be passed by the full house as it was later converted into an Act.)
Choudhary, on behalf of the RSVP, had dissented in the process of passing the bill by the parliamentary committee. It was protested that there was no transparency in land use, that the executive was given the right to set limits, which was against the principle of separation of powers, and that there was a loose provision for approving land beyond the limits.
In addition, it was pointed out that the definition of unorganized residents was unclear and weak in the dissenting opinion of the RASWPA at that time, and there was a lack of provision for full economic evaluation while selecting the beneficiaries.
He is committed to play a role in making the land law this time by taking into account the differences held at that time.
"If the state is going to limit the rights of citizens in the name of land management, its legal basis, due process and alternative arrangements should also be clear," he says, "therefore, parliament should look at the bill not only as a proposal of the government, but from the perspective of citizens' fundamental rights, social justice, equality and the state's responsibility."
He also says that after the government brings the bill, there will be sufficient discussion on it in the parliament and the parliamentary committee. Choudhary adds, "If necessary, the unclear provisions should be amended after sufficient discussion in the parliamentary committee."
Bajgai, who is attached to Online Khabar's political bureau, writes on parliamentary affairs.
