Nepal Issues Forest and Land Ordinances to Open Ownership Route for Eligible Landless Families

Land ownership plan sets 7 percent and 12 percent charges

President Ram Chandra Paudel issued two ordinances on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, opening a legal route for eligible landless families in Nepal to obtain ownership of certain plots that have remained blocked by their classification in government records. According to Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sobita Gautam, qualifying families can receive agricultural land for a charge of 7 percent of its minimum valuation, or residential land for 12 percent.

The measures also allow certain settlements occupied and cultivated before February 11, 2010, to undergo a single remapping exercise where records identify the land as forest but no actual forest exists. The identified plots would first be registered in the name of the Government of Nepal, rather than transferred directly to their occupants.

The President's Office confirmed that Paudel promulgated the forest and land ordinances on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers under Article 114(1) of the Constitution. Its announcement did not detail the individual provisions being amended. Gautam subsequently described the eligibility checks, charges, conservation protections and administrative changes intended to make the measures work.

The distinction is central to the plan: correcting a land record does not automatically give an occupant ownership. Committees or task forces must still check legal eligibility, using recommendations from local governments. Gautam also said the ordinances do not permit unrestricted distribution of government, public or forest land.

Why existing settlements could not obtain titles

Gautam described a problem that has survived changes of government and successive land commissions. Some families have occupied and cultivated plots for many years, yet those plots remain listed in official records as forest, grazing land or land reserved for another public purpose.

In some places, she said, records identify forest where a settlement exists instead. That mismatch has prevented ownership transfers even to families already identified as eligible by a land commission. The new approach combines correction of the land record with a separate assessment of the household seeking a title.

This is more than a change to the name on a document. The government must first establish which plots qualify for the remapping provision and their legal status. It must then establish which applicants qualify to receive land. Resolving one question does not settle the other.

The measures also address ownership and record problems involving land distributed by earlier government commissions. That gives the ordinances two related purposes: creating a route for eligible households still awaiting land and resolving unfinished administrative problems from previous allocations.

How the remapping and allocation process would work

According to Gautam's explanation, the remapping provision applies to designated plots occupied and cultivated before February 11, 2010. Those plots must be recorded as forest without actually being forested. They can be remapped once and brought into government ownership before an allocation process proceeds.

After registration in the government's name, a land committee or task force would examine applicants on the recommendation of the relevant local government. The minister described legal eligibility checks as a required stage, not an optional formality.

The key dates and steps are:

• Before February 11, 2010: occupation and cultivation must have begun for plots considered under the described remapping provision.
• After February 11, 2010: occupation of government or public land alone does not qualify a person for allocation as an informal settler.
• October 13, 2026: Paudel issued the two ordinances on the Cabinet's recommendation.
• Following identification and remapping: qualifying plots are registered to the government before household eligibility checks and allocation.

The occupation date is therefore a boundary in the scheme, not a promise that every earlier occupant will receive land. The condition of the plot, its legal classification and the eligibility of the applicant remain separate requirements.

What families would pay

Eligible families seeking land for agriculture would pay 7 percent of its minimum valuation. Those seeking land for housing would pay 12 percent. Minimum valuation is the value used as the base for calculating the prescribed charge; the percentages do not establish a uniform cash price for every plot.

For land with the same minimum valuation, the residential charge would be five percentage points higher than the agricultural charge. Calculated from the stated rates, it would be about 71 percent higher than the agricultural charge. Actual payments would depend on the valuation attached to the land concerned.

No schedule of valuations, plot sizes or household payment amounts has been announced in the explanations described so far. The rates alone therefore do not show how affordable an allocation would be for a particular family, or how much land that family could receive.

Where suitable land is unavailable, the government may purchase land for distribution to eligible citizens. That provision offers an alternative to relying entirely on existing government holdings. Gautam's explanation does not specify a purchase budget, the locations to be considered or the number of households that could benefit.

Forest protection and limits on eligibility

Gautam said the measures preserve legal protections for actual forests, national parks and public land that requires conservation. The remapping provision concerns a discrepancy between a record and conditions on the ground, not a general permission to clear forest for settlement.

People who began occupying government or public land after February 11, 2010, cannot obtain land as informal settlers solely because they occupied it. The minister's explanation presents that restriction as a limit on claims based on occupation, rather than a complete description of every possible eligibility category.

She also distinguished the identification of genuinely landless citizens from indiscriminate distribution. Applicants must meet the criteria established by law. Neither a local recommendation nor the absence of trees on a plot, by itself, is described as sufficient to secure ownership.

These distinctions matter because the policy combines two responsibilities that can come into conflict: providing land to eligible households and protecting public property. The stated safeguards retain conservation protections while allowing specified record problems to be corrected.

Safer settlements and continuity for land committees

The ordinances include arrangements to move landless families living along riverbanks, within road corridors and in other dangerous locations to safer places. For those households, the proposed solution is alternative accommodation, rather than simply granting a title to the site they currently occupy.

This separates the question of household eligibility from the suitability of a settlement. A family may need a secure place to live even where its existing location cannot safely be retained. Gautam's explanation does not identify relocation sites, a timetable for moves or the number of families affected.

Land problem resolution committees and task forces are to remain in place until they complete their assigned responsibilities. The measure seeks to preserve continuity in work that the minister said has repeatedly remained unfinished despite government promises and the creation of commissions.

The same bodies would also help resolve ownership and record disputes arising from previous land distributions. The scope therefore extends beyond new applications to cases where an earlier allocation did not result in clear or completed ownership records.

More land services through local governments

The ordinances expand the land services that can be delivered by local governments. Gautam listed registration, ownership transfers, record updates, restrictions on registration and the removal of those restrictions among the designated services that may be handled locally.

In practical terms, an ownership transfer changes whose name appears on the land record. A record update brings the register into line with an approved transaction or decision. A restriction prevents specified dealings with a plot until the relevant legal or administrative condition is resolved.

The change could reduce the need to travel to land revenue offices for the designated services. It does not mean that every land function has been transferred to local authorities. The minister referred to specified work, and her explanation did not give a full operational schedule for each municipality.

The measures also clarify procedures for managing materials from rivers in buffer zones and operating industries or businesses on privately owned land. Gautam said those activities remain subject to environmental assessments and applicable laws. They are not described as exempt from environmental review.

Political support, but no automatic distribution

Ganesh Karki, the member of Parliament for Morang constituency No. 3, welcomed the ordinances in a social media statement. Addressing constituents, he described the amendments, in translation, as:

a special and big leap

Karki connected that assessment to places recorded as forest or forest area despite the absence of actual forest, and to unresolved problems involving landless households and unregistered government land. His statement expressed political support for the measures; it was not an announcement that individual claims had been approved.

The minister's explanation supplies the qualifications behind that optimism. Plots must meet the relevant conditions, applicants must pass eligibility checks, and protected land remains protected. Registration of a qualifying plot in the government's name is an intermediate step, not the final ownership document for a household.

What has been decided and what is still unspecified

The presidential announcement establishes that the two ordinances were issued under Article 114(1), which empowers the president to promulgate ordinances on the Cabinet's recommendation when Parliament is not in session. Reports identify their titles using 2083, the Nepali calendar year, while the English announcement describes them with 2026.

The substantive explanation comes from Gautam's account of the measures. The President's Office statement did not set out the amended clauses, and no complete provision by provision account accompanies that announcement. The stated eligibility process should therefore not be read as a substitute for the precise legal wording.

Several practical details are still unspecified: the number of eligible households, the area available for allocation, purchase funding, relocation locations and the application timetable. No next hearing, vote, registration deadline or distribution date has been announced in the accounts of the decision.

For families awaiting ownership, the immediate change is the creation of a legal route through record correction, government registration and eligibility review. Whether a particular household receives agricultural land, residential land or alternative accommodation depends on the checks and arrangements described by the minister.

Key Points

• President Paudel issued two forest and land ordinances on October 13, 2026, following a Cabinet recommendation.
• Certain plots occupied and cultivated before February 11, 2010, may be remapped once if recorded as forest but not actually forested.
• Eligible families would pay 7 percent of minimum valuation for agricultural land or 12 percent for residential land.
• The government may purchase land where suitable land is unavailable and arrange safer accommodation for families in dangerous locations.
• Actual forests, national parks and public land requiring conservation retain legal protection.
• Specified land services may be delivered locally, but application dates and distribution schedules have not been announced.