In number 3 of the agenda set for the meeting of the House of Representatives on June 25, it was mentioned that Land Management Minister Balram Adhikari will submit a proposal to discuss the land-related bill in the House. On that day, after submitting the amendments to the bill for decision, the agenda for passing the bill was fixed the previous day in the evening. But neither the ruling party Congress was consulted nor the opposition parties were aware of this.

According to the Congress leaders, suspicion arose after the bill to amend some of Nepal's land-related laws was placed on the agenda without consulting the ruling party. The land bill was dropped from the agenda that day after Congress leaders objected. But even on Thursday, , no agreement has been reached between the parties regarding the land bill. . 

Minister of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation Balram Adhikari is in favor of passing the bill as soon as possible because the Land Commission is unable to work due to the bill. Kantipur's brief conversation with Minister Adhikari about the bill:

Why was the land bill, which was on the agenda of the parliament, removed? No

, they didn't inform me. It was not known whether it was removed or not. I came to know that there is some doubt from the Congress. There have been amendments in some sections. It has been raised that it should be clear.

What is the meaning of trying to pass the land bill without discussing it in the parliamentary committee at once on the 'fast track' in the background of controversy already when the ordinance was brought? There is nothing to take to the

committee. Taking it to the committee is procedurally delayed. Due to the delay, the land commission cannot work. Some things have become clear. They also agree on things that are not. The discussion has progressed. There is still something left, everyone agrees and moves forward.

Congress has demanded that it should be corrected because there is a provision in the bill to allow the land reserved for other purposes to be sold in the name of 'housing' business.

Real estate and housing are more concerned. It is suspected that other land will also go in the name of housing. But it is not like that. The arrangement made in the bill is only for those who have taken permission for housing. It is not connected with other lands. It has been clarified in the bill. Such land cannot be sold or exchanged for any purpose other than the purpose for which consent has been taken.

What is the opinion here about the amendments made by the two general ministers of the Congress and other leaders?

It is clear in the bill that it is not allowed to do business in other land except after obtaining permission for real estate business. Congress has said that it should be clarified by explaining a little more. It is our understanding that it is not necessary because it is not in the bill. It will be agreed after discussion.

Why do you object to taking such an important bill to the committee for discussion? The

difference does not matter. Only 3 points are amended. Therefore, a deep discussion is not necessary. After going to the committee, the process is long. Sometimes it can take years. The commission has already been formed, but it has not been able to work because the law has not been made. That is why we have asked to take it on the 'fast track'. 70 percent of the amendments made now have been included in the bill itself. But some have registered the amendment without looking at the regulations and without understanding what is in the law.

Will this bill be passed in the current session?

happens. The process has been carried forward by consensus to be passed in this convention. There are some discussions going on within the Congress too, if something happens, we will be consulted.

When bringing the ordinance, the president 'held' for two days regarding some provisions, is there any other internal reason for rushing the bill in the background that the ordinance was not approved by the parliament?

The President has put a hold on the matter for two days saying that he will look into it because it is about land. Not because of disagreement. The President had no objection.

Do some people suspect that the bill was rushed for the sake of vote politics? Not a

. The previous government also tried to bring this bill. This is a matter related to the program of organizing the landless Dalits, squatters and unorganized citizens living in the slums that the parties have continuously promoted. On the unorganized settlement map from 70-80 years ago, it is written somewhere as Gaucharan, somewhere else as path, forest and intermediate. Settlements cannot be removed. It is tried to amend that they should be given Lalpurja. Similarly, the Forest Act was enacted in 2076, followed by the Land Act. At that time, those written as Bhutan were considered as forests, and the places where settlements were developed were considered as settlements. But even now, in some places, the place where there is a settlement is shown as forest. This has created a problem. We have tried to amend it. In the same way, when the intermediate area is kept as a national park, there is pressure to remove the settlements. It needs to be amended.