Bulldozers Halted, Bigger Questions Begin

The Supreme Court’s interim order has halted the government’s demolition drive in squatter settlements, which had already resulted in the displacement of hundreds of families in the Kathmandu Valley. The court has extended a ban on evictions until a final verdict and instructed authorities to safeguard basic human rights such as shelter, education, healthcare, and food for those affected by displacement. In its order, the Supreme Court noted that rehabilitation and protection must be prioritized while the matter remains under judicial consideration. By the time the order was issued, a significant portion of demolition work in major settlements had already been completed, leaving many families without shelter or basic amenities. The government led by Balendra Shah initiated the drive on April 25 to clear public land—mainly riverbanks and urban areas—of illegal encroachments. Areas such as Thapathali, Gairigaun, Sinamangal, Shantinagar, Kapan, Balaju, and Balkhu witnessed extensive bulldozer operations, affecting both makeshift and permanent structures. The judiciary’s intervention has brought renewed focus to the squatter issue—shifting attention from land clearance to its consequences, particularly for vulnerable families left without support. While clearing encroached public land may restore order on paper, the court has reminded the state that the rule of law does not end with eviction.

The state is within its rights to protect public land and manage riverbanks, but enforcement without preparation risks turning policy into displacement. Reports have also surfaced of eviction notices being issued through loudspeakers during weekends when courts were closed, along with concerns over inadequate rehabilitation arrangements. The Rastriya Swatantra Party has urged authorities to avoid bulldozing private property, while allegations have also emerged suggesting that some political actors themselves may not have clean records regarding land use. According to the Kathmandu Valley Development Authority, hundreds of squatter families across different settlements have already been evicted. Although temporary shelters and food assistance were provided, many families have complained of overcrowding and insufficient support. This is where the court’s intervention becomes significant. It does not halt urban regulation but calls for sequencing—first data collection, then classification, and finally action. The government’s plan to develop an integrated digital database for squatters could support this approach, provided it does not become another layer of bureaucracy.

Proper categorization of families, issuance of identity documents, and mapping of settlements are necessary steps. However, groundwork without rehabilitation planning only delays the next crisis. What Nepal needs is not another cycle of demolition and relief, but a structured pause that enables planning before action. Key measures include identifying genuine encroachment cases through reliable data, distinguishing between land grabbers and landless families, and ensuring housing solutions are in place before eviction begins. Most importantly, urban development must align with human realities, not just land records. The state often advocates long-term planning but acts in short-term bursts of enforcement. That contradiction has now reached the courtroom. The judiciary’s message is clear, even if uncomfortable for the government: enforcement without preparation undermines governance itself. If this pause leads to structured settlement policies and real rehabilitation frameworks, it will serve a meaningful purpose. If it becomes another temporary freeze before the next wave of demolitions, the cycle will continue—and vulnerable families will once again bear the cost.