During deliberations on the bill, ruling party lawmakers argued that the government is making timely legal reforms to address the nation’s complex land management problems. They claimed the bill includes positive provisions aimed at benefiting landless citizens and marginalized communities.
However, opposition lawmakers voiced strong reservations, warning that some provisions could trigger unregulated plotting and commercialization of arable land. They questioned whether the bill was designed to serve the interests of large-scale land developers and apartment businesses, rather than addressing the problems of genuine landless populations.
Key Points of Concern and Support:
-
Sushila Sirpali Thakuri criticized the inclusion of provisions in the bill that were heavily opposed in previous ordinances, particularly those enabling excessive plotting of cultivable land.
-
Rupasosi Chaudhary accused the government of drafting the bill to benefit big developers and businessmen.
-
Ranendra Baraili argued that earlier controversial measures had merely been reworded and inserted again, raising questions about the bill’s true intent.
-
Metmani Chaudhary appreciated certain relief provisions for the landless but stated the bill’s overall philosophy was flawed. He emphasized that land should belong to the state and be distributed based on need.
-
Damodar Poudel Bairagi highlighted the bill’s positive intentions to provide land and housing for landless Dalits and to ensure land rights for those lacking official documents (Lalpurja).
-
Lal Prasad Sawa Limbu called the bill time-relevant and warned against opposing it merely for political reasons.
-
Saharaj Ahmad stressed the need for the bill to address classification issues of agricultural land to prevent misuse.
-
Saraswati Subba said the bill seeks to systematize scattered settlements and help the landless, especially Dalits and squatters.
-
Amresh Kumar Singh claimed the bill is aimed more at distributing state resources than at solving core land issues.
-
Manish Jha pointed to past scandals such as the Giribandhu and Gokarna Resort cases, suggesting that such incidents justify public skepticism over the bill.
-
Rajendra Prasad Pandey said the bill appears to favor wealthy apartment builders over genuine squatters.
-
Sumana Shrestha raised alarm over rapid land monetization, arguing that it is becoming impossible for ordinary citizens to own property in urban areas.
-
Hitraj Pandey demanded the bill be sent to a parliamentary committee for extensive review, stating it appears to cater to a narrow group’s interests.
-
Mahesh Kumar Bartaula supported the bill, claiming it aims to provide land to nearly 1.2 million landless Dalits and is essential for solving land-related issues in the absence of legal provisions.
Additional lawmakers including Suryaprasad Dhakal, Bijula Rayamajhi, Ranjukumari Jha, Narayani Sharma, Chiring Dambdul Lama Bhote, and others also expressed their views on the bill’s theoretical aspects, underlining the diverse perspectives among parliamentarians.
While the bill promises reforms, the strong divergence in opinions underscores the need for broader consultations to ensure it serves national interests over private gains.
