Prosecution Of Encroachment Of National Park Land
Legal Framework
Before discussing cases:
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 BS: Protects national parks, reserves, and wildlife areas. Unauthorized occupation, construction, or land use is a criminal offence.
Forest Act, 2019: National forestland cannot be used without government permission; encroachment is punishable by fines and imprisonment.
Buffer Zone Management Regulations: Even lands adjacent to parks (buffer zones) are protected, and any settlement or construction without approval is illegal.
Penalties can include:
Imprisonment (1–5 years depending on severity)
Fines
Removal of structures
Compensation for damage to public land or forest resources
Case 1: Chitwan National Park Encroachment (2020)
Facts: Villagers in Khusung Khola Municipality built houses illegally within the buffer zone of Chitwan National Park. Some had cleared forested land for agriculture.
Legal Issues: Encroachment on protected buffer zone, illegal land use under National Parks Act.
Prosecution: Park authorities identified encroachments, issued notices, and filed cases at the district court. Local police assisted in enforcement.
Outcome: Nine houses were demolished; the occupants were fined and required to restore the cleared land. Some cases went to court, but a few were acquitted due to lack of proper land registry evidence.
Significance: Highlights both enforcement and challenges due to weak documentation of land ownership.
Case 2: Bardiya National Park Industrial Encroachment (2021)
Facts: A local factory extended its premises into the buffer zone of Bardiya National Park, including clearing forest land.
Legal Issues: Industrial use of protected land violates National Parks and Forest Act provisions.
Prosecution: Department of National Parks filed a case, and the factory was issued a stop‑work order. The anti-corruption body also investigated municipal officials for collusion.
Outcome: Factory was fined, part of the encroached land was restored, and two municipal officials faced administrative sanctions. Criminal prosecution was pending for company owners.
Significance: Shows that collusion between local authorities and private actors complicates enforcement.
Case 3: Parsa National Park Private Land Encroachment (2022)
Facts: Over 25 bighas of national park land were illegally claimed and used for private farming by local elites.
Legal Issues: Unauthorised occupation of national park land; violation of Forest Act.
Prosecution: CIAA filed complaints against the land users and officials who helped them register the land. Investigations involved surveying and land demarcation.
Outcome: Land reclamation orders were issued; prosecution against officials was ongoing. Some land users were fined and ordered to vacate.
Significance: Illustrates how elite influence delays legal action and complicates prosecution.
Case 4: Buffer Zone Encroachment in Annapurna Conservation Area (2023)
Facts: A group of villagers built small lodges and guesthouses inside the buffer zone of Annapurna Conservation Area without approval.
Legal Issues: Violation of buffer zone regulations, illegal construction in protected area.
Prosecution: The conservation authority issued notices, and the district administration initiated demolition proceedings.
Outcome: Four lodges were demolished; fines imposed on owners; some appealed to court claiming customary land use.
Significance: Demonstrates conflict between local customary claims and formal legal protection of conservation areas.
Case 5: Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve Agricultural Encroachment (2023)
Facts: A few farmers had extended agricultural land into parts of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, destroying reeds and wetland habitat.
Legal Issues: Illegal use of wetland/national reserve land.
Prosecution: The reserve management office filed cases under both National Parks Act and Forest Act.
Outcome: Farmers were evicted; partial fines imposed. Some challenged eviction in court claiming historical land use. Court upheld eviction orders, citing ecological importance.
Significance: Highlights tension between livelihoods and protected area laws; courts upheld environmental protection.
Case 6: Ilam Protected Forest Encroachment (2024)
Facts: Tea plantation expansion into Ilam’s protected forest areas, clearing hundreds of trees.
Legal Issues: Violation of Forest Act and protected land use regulations.
Prosecution: District forest office filed cases against plantation owners; notice issued to remove planted tea saplings on encroached land.
Outcome: Court ordered compensation for forest loss; plantation partially relocated; criminal liability was considered but delayed due to appeals.
Significance: Shows that economic activities are a major driver of encroachment and can delay prosecution.
Observations Across Cases
Types of Encroachment: Settlements, agriculture, industrial expansion, lodges/guesthouses.
Challenges in Prosecution: Lack of land records, collusion of officials, customary land claims.
Judicial Support: Courts generally uphold eviction and fines but slow criminal proceedings reduce deterrence.
Enforcement Role: Park authorities and forest offices initiate removal, but CIAA involvement needed when officials are complicit.
Outcome Trends: Administrative removal is faster than criminal conviction; fines are common, imprisonment rare.
These cases show that Nepal has a robust legal framework for prosecuting encroachment on national park and forest land, but implementation gaps and local power dynamics often slow down justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments