Property ceiling clause criticised
Property ceiling clause criticised
Published: 05:14 am Sep 21, 2009
KATHMANDU: A total of 22 non-Maoist Constituent Assembly (CA) members today registered different proposals in contrary to a clause about property right of an individual and institution, which was approved by the CA Committee on Natural Resources and Revenue Sharing on Friday. The committee has 43 members. The approved clause states that the state can acquire the land of an individual or an institution above the ceiling fixed by the law while implementing land reforms. The Unified CPN-Maoist CA members had lobbied that the state should acquire the surplus land without giving compensation. The non-Maoist CA members, who registered the different proposals, however, proposed that the state ought to give compensation while acquiring such land. Nineteen CA members registered their collective view while three CA members — Diwakar Golchha, Binod Chaudhari and Rajendra Khetan — registered similar proposals separately. They said that the approved clause was against individual and fundamental rights to property and against all past agreements, worldwide principle of human rights and the Interim Constitution. They also expressed objection to the process of putting the clause for voting without giving information beforehand to other CA members, except for the Maoist lawmakers. They accused that the committee chairperson Amrita Thapa, who represents the Maoist party, put the clause for voting at the meeting, when several non-Maoist CA members were absent. The proposal, registered today, stated that the committee chairperson put forth the clause for voting ignoring repeated requests of CA members to follow the work procedure. “It’s violation of the CA work procedure,” they said. The Nepali Congress and CPN-UML CA members had also registered similar proposals on the Committee on Judiciary stating that the UCPN-Maoist CA members violated work procedure while putting a clause for voting. Though the committee approved the provision by simple majority, it will require a two-third majority to specify the clause in the new constitution.