Riverside civilization, the need for gentle dialogue

Especially the leaders and workers of UML, the leadership party of the federal government, are taking the initiative to review the decision by meeting the Prime Minister and the heads of major parties. Balen Shah, the mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, seems to be in a position to stop implementing the ordinance. But in the meantime, the specific words and meaning of the Supreme Court's decree have been overshadowed. Instead, the data, analysis and fear that are presented according to oneself have become the 'main topic'.

In two separate writs filed by Consumer Protection Forum in 2068, on December 3, the bench of Justices Anand Mohan Bhattarai and Vinod Sharma issued an injunction in the name of the local government of the valley. In the verdict, it is said that apart from the distance fixed by the Council of Ministers on 1st of November, 2065, permission for construction will be granted only by leaving an additional distance of 20 meters. In that decision of the cabinet, 20 meters on the banks of Wagmati, Bishnumati and Manohara, 12 meters on the Nakhkhu river, 10 meters on the Balkhu, Karmanasa, Koiku, Sangle and Mahadev rivers, the distance according to the plan at the Dhobikhola project site and 9 meters on others, 6 meters on the Karkhusi river. The matching criteria were fixed. Now no new structure can be built at a distance of 20 meters. But if the structure has already been constructed after passing the map according to the law, then such structure does not need to be removed. According to the verdict, the government can also take the necessary land for the smooth flow of rivers and streams to build roads, sewers or processing centers etc. Similarly, it is mentioned that the actual squatters living on the river bank will also be relocated. There are mainly two aspects to the analysis of the

mandate. Firstly, every rainy season, floods from the rivers/streams flowing inside the Kathmandu valley have also entered the settlements. Due to the natural flow area being encroached upon, there is a strong argument and basis that the flood from the river/river enters the settlement. On the other hand, the problem of inundation is caused even if the area where the river/river is likely to spread is not kept clear. Experts say that when physical structures are built even on the banks of rivers/streams, the capacity of the ground to absorb water is also lost, so the impact of floods is greater. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court can be considered as a milestone from many angles, including protection of rivers/streams, reduction of the problem of flooding in settlements, environmental sensitivity.

Second, the verdict has unnerved groups that previously had legal rights to the land there. Because, many have poured their long-term earnings and the selling price of ancestral property to acquire land in Kathmandu Valley. Many are also burdened with debt. They take loan from the bank by mortgaging the same land, and operate their trade/business. On the other hand, the land and the houses and structures built on it are also linked to the right to property and the right to housing as mentioned in the constitution. There is no truth in the rumor that riverside land will be vacated overnight, but many people are confused about the ownership of their property.

The implementation of the currently available mandate becomes mandatory unless or until the Supreme Court's mandate is reviewed. But after a dispute arose over the implementation of the mandate, the government formed a study task force. Several issues will become more clear after the task force report. However, all concerned need to understand that this is a very sensitive issue. This is not a matter of haste.

As land and housing are life-and-death concerns for many, those affected can easily organize and build collective power. Therefore, the federal government, local governments in Kathmandu Valley, influential parties and groups should have a gentle dialogue on this matter, not provocation. Don't aim to get benefit by making each other uncomfortable. Instead, it should be done in a sensible manner. If there are questions about this decision and its implementation, it should be a situation to sit down and discuss it. In particular, the local governments of the valley, the implementers of the decision, should be able to trust the people's representatives. People's representatives should also use their discretion for the greater good rather than calculating personal and party benefits.