कान्तिपुर वेबसाईट
AdvertisementAdvertisement
२१.१२°C काठमाडौं
काठमाडौंमा वायुको गुणस्तर: ७६

The full text of the Supreme Court in the Giribandhu case: "Prohibition on sale, encroachment and keeping barren of restricted land"

Mandate in the name of the government to bring the equipment into the ownership of the government even if it is found to be used contrary to the conditions.
मातृका दाहाल
Disclaimer

We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:

This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.

The Supreme Court has permanently restrained the use or exchange of land beyond the limit for certain purposes for other purposes. The Supreme Court has issued a decree in the name of the government not only to misuse the land that has been exempted from limitation, but also to bring it under the ownership of the government even if it is found to be barren.

The full text of the Supreme Court in the Giribandhu case:

The then government under the leadership of KP Sharma Oli had decided on 13 Baisakh 2078 to exchange more than 343 ropanis of land of Giribandhu T-Estate in Birtamod, Jhapa and use it for commercial purposes. Advocate Omprakash Aryal filed a petition in the Supreme Court calling the decision political corruption. In which the Supreme Court annulled the government's decision as illegal on January 24. Publishing the full text of the verdict on Friday, the Supreme Court has given a historical interpretation with strict conditions even in the case of other lands related to demarcation exemption. In addition, the Supreme Court has also issued an order to keep the land of Giribandhu in the name of the government, overturning the decision already made to transfer it to the name of an individual.

'In the case of providing a limited exemption, the land that has been used for a different purpose without being used or used for the purpose as mentioned, or the land has been kept empty (barren) and the land found to be in excess of that limit shall be immediately and compulsorily acquired in the name of the Government of Nepal.' The judgment said.

The interpretation of the Supreme Court has also curbed the manipulation of the "ruler-power center" by changing the law and misusing the power and authority to use the restricted land for other purposes. Advocate Aryal said that the judicial interpretation made through the full text of the judgment related to Giribandhu T-Estate established a precedent that the land exempted from delimitation is not only misused or used for other purposes, but even if it is kept barren, it will be acquired in the name of the government.

This judgment and interpretation by the Supreme Court on demarcated land has expanded the constitutional jurisprudence of the land-related justice sector. The Supreme Court has interpreted the demarcated land as national property,' Aryal said to Kantipur, 'No one can eat/move or use the demarcated land against the terms and conditions of anyone's interest.' The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the permission or approval given in connection with land leasing is completely unfair and the concept of demarcation made by land laws is counterproductive. No one is above the law, the law is supreme. This can be understood as a general principle of the rule of law, but it was found that one decision after another against the intention of the demarcation law was made by the departmental ministers and the cabinet level of the Government of Nepal.

The Supreme Court has said that the decision regarding Giribandhu is a 'loan-conditional decision and immature nature', stating that the thing to be given and the thing to be taken must be guaranteed for satta-patta, but the behavior that the thing to be given is certain and the thing to be received is uncertain does not take the place of satta-patta.

The Supreme Court has issued a mandate in the name of the government with strict conditions to stop the activities of taking land in the name of delimitation. In full text, if permission is granted for lease or transfer of land beyond the limit for reasonable and sufficient reasons, an opinion with a technical analysis of the area of ​​land, tea production area or feasibility, ensuring that the proportional area of ​​the land to be leased is available in one place (in one plot), take lease And the proportional value of both the land to be given, ensuring that the number of jobs provided immediately will not decrease, the environmental impact assessment of tea cultivation on the land to be leased, and if the land is to be leased or transferred, reasonable and sufficient reasons and the objective basis to confirm the same, only after the overall aspects including the Land Act are determined. It is said to carry out management work related to lease or transfer of land in excess of the limit so as to be compatible with the concept.

The Supreme Court has mandated to identify the land that has been used for a different (other) purpose or the land has been kept empty (barren) as per the condition of granting the limit exemption and immediately and compulsorily bring the land that exceeds the limit to the name of the Government of Nepal. In the areas where such restriction is applied, any land owner who owns or owns land in excess of the maximum amount of land that can be held according to the law until the date of such restriction is applied, after the commencement of the provisions related to the restriction, such land shall be sold, donated, leased or in any other manner to anyone other than the share holder who is entitled to a share by law. The Supreme Court also explained that if the right has been waived, regardless of whether the written registration of the transaction has been passed or not, such transaction will not be recognized for the purpose of limitation. "It seems that the provision of demarcation will be applied as if the provision of demarcation remains with the land owner who relinquishes such land rights," the full text says, "Therefore, when calculating the land area transferred for demarcation purposes of Giribandhu T-Estate Pvt Ltd, 51 bighas transferred according to the decision of 2060 The land should also be calculated for the purpose of maintaining the total demarcated area and according to the calculation, the land in the name of the respondent Giribandhu T-Estate Pvt The interest groups and traders had already prepared the transaction documents for 375 million, saying that the purchase and sale of land would be ensured. For the purchase and sale of land, an agreement was signed between T-Estate Chairman Chhatra Bahadur Giri, Directors Bharatlal Giri, Rajesh Giri and Jhapa's Rajendra Kumar Thapa, Tankprasad Upreti and Manikumar Prasai on 27th December 2073. Bhaktaraj Bharti of Jhapa filed a writ in the Supreme Court on January 14, 2075 after the process was started to lease the land of Giribandhu. While hearing the writ, the joint bench of Meera Khadka and Harikrishna Karki issued an interim order on February 6, 2075, holding that it was against the Land Act 2021. After that, the Oli government at that time amended the law to allow business groups to enter the land and lease the plantations to lower-priced land elsewhere.

After 5 years of the purchase and sale agreement, the Shakti-Swarth group succeeded in getting the decision to lease the land from the Council of Ministers. But the plan to exchange the land of Giribandhu's tea garden, which was stopped after filing a case in the court, was finally reined in by the Supreme Court. Crores of rupees were also collected from the common people for the purpose of plotting the land of Giribandhu T-Estate. The issue of how the money of about 500 people who paid money without paying to get the land on the east-west highway side in Jhapa Birtamod will be returned.

प्रकाशित : वैशाख ३०, २०८१ ०६:३९
प्रतिक्रिया
पठाउनुहोस्
जनताको राय

१८ महिना सरकारको नेतृत्व गरेर सत्ता बहिर्गमन भएको माओवादीलाई तपाईंको के सुझाव छ ?

×