- Nepal must relocate landless families from disaster-prone areas to safe settlements equipped with basic services and sustainable livelihood opportunities.
- Establishing a permanent digital land record system is essential to replace political commissions, verify genuine claims, and prevent public land encroachment.
- Effective land-use classification and land banks are necessary to protect agricultural productivity and manage urban expansion while addressing climate risks.
- Relocation strategies must prioritize social justice and technical capacity to ensure long-term housing security and economic stability for vulnerable groups.
Solving landlessness also requires safe housing, productive use of land and protection of the environment
Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal’s land management problem is once again drawing attention. The issue is not limited to giving land to landless people, issuing land ownership certificates to squatters or managing informal settlements. It also involves moving families living along riverbanks and in other dangerous areas to safer places. The recent floods in the Bhotekoshi and Trishuli areas have exposed the risks faced by people living in vulnerable locations and raised questions about how Nepal should manage land and settlements in the years ahead.
The government has proposed changes to land laws to relocate landless Dalits and landless squatters living in high-risk areas. Under the proposed provisions, families living along riverbanks, near lakes and ponds, inside forests, national parks and wildlife reserves, within road boundaries and in other unsafe areas would have to be provided with alternative places to live.
Government records show that 1,096,670 applications have been filed by landless people and informal settlers across the country. Of them, 87,995 are landless Dalits, 166,060 are landless squatters and 842,615 are informal settlers. The number could rise if more families have to leave their homes because of floods, landslides and other disasters.
But Nepal’s land problem is much bigger than the question of who owns a piece of land. It is linked to farming, food security, urban growth, protection of public and government land, rivers and forests, uncontrolled plotting, housing, jobs, migration and land ownership among women and Dalits. The federal, provincial and local governments also need to work within the same policy framework, with the private and cooperative sectors playing their part.
Nepal has changed its land laws several times. Different commissions and committees have also been formed, and land ownership certificates have been distributed in various periods. Yet the problem has continued. Every change of government often brings a new commission and fresh promises of land ownership. This approach has not solved the underlying problem. Nepal needs a permanent system based on reliable information and clear rules rather than political decisions.
A reliable digital land record should be at the heart of that system. Land records held by land revenue and survey offices should be brought together in a national digital database. The system should allow authorities to check land ownership, government and public land, forests, agricultural areas, disputed land and changes in land use. Such records would make it easier to identify genuine landless families and reduce fraud, duplicate claims, forged documents and encroachment on public land.
At the same time, simply filing an application should not be enough to establish that someone is landless. Authorities need to check whether the applicant or family owns land somewhere else, their financial situation and the circumstances under which they came to live in their current location. Without proper verification, people with political connections or influence could receive benefits intended for those who genuinely need them.
The same principle applies to settlements in dangerous areas. Removing houses from a risky location without making proper arrangements for the people living there is not a solution. Families need safe land and housing, but they also need drinking water, sanitation, schools, health services, transportation and a way to earn a living.
For example, moving a family from Kathmandu back to its original district may sound straightforward. But if there is no work or source of income there, the family may eventually return to the city or move somewhere else. Resettlement should therefore be planned around people's livelihoods, not just their physical relocation.
Land-use classification is another major problem. The Land Use Act, 2019 (2076 B.S.) divides land into categories such as agricultural, residential, industrial, forest and commercial areas. However, implementation has been slow. Reports said that by the middle of 2083 B.S., only 340 of Nepal’s 753 local governments had completed land-use classification. The figure later reached 390, while another report said land subdivision had again been stopped in 363 local governments.
Land-use decisions should take into account soil quality, agricultural production, roads, markets, environmental conditions and the risk of floods and landslides. Agricultural land should not easily be converted into housing plots. At the same time, stopping all land subdivision can create problems for people who need to sell or divide their legally owned property. Rules should therefore vary according to the type and location of land. Agricultural land could have tighter subdivision rules, planned residential areas could allow controlled subdivision, and subdivision should be prohibited in areas considered unsafe.
A land bank could also help put unused agricultural land back into production. There are many areas where farmland is being left unused while people who want to farm do not have enough land. Without taking away private ownership, unused land could be leased to farmers, cooperatives or agricultural businesses for a fixed period. This would allow landowners to retain ownership while making better use of land that is otherwise sitting idle.
Protecting farmland is also important for food security. Productive agricultural areas need stronger protection. Uncontrolled plotting should be stopped, while unused farmland should be brought back into cultivation. Areas with irrigation, roads and access to markets should receive policies that encourage farming and agricultural businesses. Land policy cannot be separated from agriculture, urban development, environmental protection and taxation.
Public and government land also needs better protection. Digital cadastral maps should clearly mark riverbanks, streams, public roads, forests, guthi land, ponds, lakes and grazing areas. Clearly recorded boundaries would make it easier for local authorities to identify encroachment and prevent new settlements from appearing on public land.
Land reform is also closely connected to social justice. Joint ownership between women and men, priority for single women, and specific provisions for landless Dalits, people with disabilities, disaster-displaced families and very poor households could make land distribution fairer.
Giving local governments more responsibility for land management will not work unless they have the people and technical skills to do the job. They need GIS specialists, survey technicians, geologists, urban planners, agricultural experts and legal professionals. The federal government could set basic standards for the technical capacity that local governments must have.
Nepal also needs to move away from temporary commissions that are formed whenever a new government comes to power. A permanent and professional land management institution could oversee the national land database, identification of landless families, protection of public land, land-use planning, land banking and the management of settlements in dangerous areas. It could also help coordinate the work of different government agencies.
Transparency will be important if the public is to trust the system. The government should publish overall figures showing how many families received land, why applications were rejected, which areas were classified as dangerous and how many families were relocated. Personal information would need to remain protected, but publishing overall figures would allow the public to see how the system is working.
Land prices and taxation also deserve attention. Urban land has become increasingly expensive, while large areas of rural farmland remain unused. These are two sides of the same problem. The government could consider reasonable taxes on unused urban land, incentives for bringing unused farmland into production and measures to discourage excessive land speculation. Such policies, however, should not put additional pressure on genuine farmers and low-income families.
Climate change makes the issue even more urgent. Floods, landslides, river erosion and glacial lake outburst floods are already affecting communities in different parts of Nepal. New settlements cannot be planned without considering these risks. Hazard assessments should therefore be required before new settlements and large housing projects are approved.
Nepal now needs to move from simply distributing land to managing land properly. People who are genuinely landless should receive land ownership certificates, but families living in dangerous areas also need safe places to live. Agricultural land should be protected, while farmers need better conditions to continue farming. Land subdivision should be regulated, but the rules should not make legitimate transactions unnecessarily difficult. A land bank could help make unused land productive while protecting private ownership and ensuring clear agreements.
Nepal’s problem is not simply that there is not enough land. Much of the problem comes from how land is recorded, used and managed. The more than one million applications from landless people and informal settlers, incomplete land-use classification, encroachment on public land and settlements in high-risk areas are all connected to weaknesses in the existing system.
The country’s future land policy therefore needs to look beyond land ownership. It should address where people live, how land is used, how farmland is protected, how communities are kept safe from disasters and how vulnerable groups can gain secure access to land and housing.
The goal should not be to give everyone a piece of land regardless of where it is. The goal should be to ensure that people have safe homes, productive land use, protected agricultural land and secure legal rights to the land they own or use.
