Kathmandu. Some people in the name of various activists are trying to create confusion by distorting the reality regarding the land dispute of Chhayadevi Complex in Thamel. Their main arguments seem to be centered on the settlement reached in the Supreme Court on Poush 23, 2033 BS in the presence of a joint bench of the then Justices Bishwanath Prasad Upadhyay and Prakash Bahadur KC.

An attempt is being made to allege that the settlement irregularly gave Keyur Shumsher Rana the right to enjoy the land by establishing a ‘tenant’. Ignoring the historical truths, facts and records that took place before 2033, attempts have been made to create controversy only on the 2033 settlement. However, the court records, old documents and historical facts, the authenticity of the landowner and the Guthi records of the land have been ignored.

In public debates, the 2033 settlement has been interpreted as a sudden tenant, but the court record has proved this wrong. According to the said agreement, it is clear that Keyur Shumsher will be the tenant and will be in possession of the land. His father, Keshar Shumsher, had been in possession of the land for a long time. The main source of land According to the ‘Tok Sadar’ dated January 16, 1967, it appears that both the owner and tenant of the land are Keshar Shumsher Rana. The 2033 settlement did not give him any new rights, but left only the rights of the landowners by retaining the tenancy rights that had been in place since 1967.

The historical continuity of this land and the tenant rights of Keshar Shamsher are confirmed by several government evidences. In the year 2022 B. S., the Guthiyars of the then Bhagwan Bahal Guthi filed a complaint with His Majesty and received the order and according to the same order, the name of Keshar Shumsher was mentioned as the tenant and the registered owner. It is also clear from the letter submitted to the Guthi Sansthan in the month of January 2023 in the name of 10 Thakali of Guthi that Keshar Shumsher had paid Salina Rs 125 to the Guthi Tahbil as tribute.

Similarly, In 2027 B. S., Singh Sarth Bahu Bhagwan Bahal Guthi had filed an application at the Kathmandu District Court seeking to retain the land in his name, which has accepted that Keshar Shumsher is the registrant and tenant as per the deed of 1967. It has also been clarified that Keshar Shumsher’s name is mentioned in the land plot. In the official letter submitted by the Guthi Sansthan itself to the court on Shrawan 30, 2028 BS, it was clarified that Keshar Shumsher himself was the registrant and tenant of the land.

Another irrefutable evidence that confirms the contents of the 2033 settlement is the misunderstood details, according to which the settlement of 2033 B. S. It is clearly stated that Keyur Shumsher had been paying Rs 125 per year to the Bhagwan Bahal Guthi Tehbil till 2025 BS. There is no legal or practical basis to say that Keyur Shamsher is not the tenant of this land. In addition to this, On May 25, 2030, the District Court and The judgment of the Regional Court on 25th Ashwin 1931 had confirmed that the registrant and the tenant were Keyur Shumsher. Surprisingly, no complaint or case has been filed against the verdict of the regional court of 2031 BS.

Based on the rumors and negative comments made in the public domain, there are 2 problems to make the land of Chhayadevi Complex public.

The first, B. S. If no law has been established to repeal the 1967 order, then on what basis should it be repealed?

Second, there is no precedent in the judicial history to date that the orders of His Majesty 3 have been revoked or have been revoked.

Since it was applicable as per the law during the Rana regime, it clearly establishes Keshar Shumsher’s legal right and right to use the land. On the basis of various legends, it is claimed that there is a pond at that place and it is also argued that the pond should be rebuilt, which does not seem to be logical at all practically and legally.

There are 3 factual grounds that this land does not belong to a public pond.

First, if there had been a historical or public pond before, there should have been a public road to get to it in ancient times, but there was no public road before. The way to enter the complex was purchased from nearby landowners for commercial purposes and built by the businessmen themselves, proving that the place was once a completely closed land within a private area.

Secondly, how can the land that has been continuously enjoyed by a person after the order of 1967 BS be made public and kept in his private possession by the construction of a compound wall?

Thirdly, according to the scientific and legal classification of the government survey (Abbal, Doyam, Sim, Chahar), the land of Chhayadevi Complex is not a public pond or reservoir but is registered in the list of ‘SIM’ i. e. low fertility agricultural land. In the classification of the land, the type of land ‘C’ (of SIM nature) is written and accordingly the revenue is collected under the SIM rate.

According to experts, if the land was government or public, there would have been no revenue.

It seems absurd and baseless to suspect that the then Justice Upadhyay and Justice KC, who were considered impartial, fearless and highly experienced in the judicial history of Nepal and who also led the drafting of the 2047 constitution, might have compromised under any collusion or pressure. At present, the petitioners are demanding the cancellation of the settlement of 2033. However, even if the agreement is legally revoked, the original source of the land, i. e. the Tok Sadar of 1967 and the subsequent orders of the District Court of 2030 and the Regional Court of 2031 B. S. will remain in place. Therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute and confusion in the matter of land ownership as some activists are only trying to create unnecessary controversy.