When Land Becomes a 19-Year Battle: A Bhutanese Supreme Court Case That Changed Property Law

I. Introduction

A single correction by a district court in 2000 triggered a legal battle that stretched across nearly two decades and ultimately reshaped Bhutan’s property law. What started as a simple dispute between two men, Kinley and Karchung, over a few acres of land became one of the most significant cases in Bhutan’s legal history. 

Why This Case Matters Today

The Kinley vs. Karchung decision, handed down by Bhutan's Supreme Court in 2018, represents more than just a property dispute between two individuals. It raised bigger questions that affect every landowner in Bhutan:

• Can someone reopen a case many years later if they feel it was unfair?

• What happens if the government takes over land you haven’t been using?

• How do courts balance individual rights with the need to close cases once and for all?

• Do landowners still own land once it turns into forest?

In today’s world, where land is scarce and disputes are common, this case gives us valuable lessons.

II. Facts

In December 1999, the Wangduephodrang District Court decided a land dispute between Kinley and Karchung, awarding Karchung 21.73 acres of Kinley’s land. Within a month, the court corrected a clerical error and issued a revised judgment, reducing Karchung’s entitlement to 19.53 acres and granting the remaining 3.20 acres to Kinley’s mother. Both parties accepted this correction without appeal.

The 3.20 acres awarded to Kinley’s mother was fully covered by forest. Under the Forest and Nature Conservation Act 1995, such unused forest land reverted to the government. Of this, 1.86 acres was retained as state forest, while 1.34 acres was substituted and registered in the family’s name elsewhere.

For fourteen years, the parties raised no disputes. In 2014, Kinley filed a case alleging that Karchung had taken more land than allowed by the 2000 corrected judgment. Karchung counterclaimed, insisting he was entitled to the full 21.73 acres awarded under the original 1999 judgment. The District Court and the High Court both rejected Kinley’s claims. Kinley then appealed to the Supreme Court for final determination.

III. Issue

The Supreme Court had to determine:

1. Whether Kinley could reopen a case 14 years after accepting the corrected court order.

2. Whether land that had become forest automatically belonged to the government.

3. How to balance landowner rights with environmental protection and legal finality.

IV. Rule

The Supreme Court's decision rested on several key legal principles that every citizen should understand:

1. The Doctrine of Estoppel (No Going Back on Your Word)

This legal principle means a party cannot contradict actions or decisions previously accepted. It prevents someone from claiming something contradictory to their previous actions. Since both Kinley and Karchung accepted the corrected 2000 decision without complaint, the court ruled they couldn't disagree later. 

2. Land Use Requirements

Bhutanese law requires landowners to actively use their land. The court emphasized that ownership comes with responsibilities, you can't simply own land without purpose and expect the government to protect your claim indefinitely. If you leave it unused and it becomes a forest, you lose ownership.

3. Finality in Legal Decisions

Courts must uphold the principle that settled matters cannot be reopened indefinitely. If every settled case could be reopened decades later, it would create chaos, resulting in endless lawsuits and a lack of legal certainty.

V. Final Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that Karchung is entitled to 19.53 acres as per the National Land Commission (NLC) report. Of the remaining 3.20 acres, 1.34 acres had been substituted in the appellant’s mother’s name, while 1.86 acres, unused and now forested, became government land. Applying estoppel, the Court dismissed claims for the full 21.73 acres, reversed lower court judgments, and ordered the return of Nu. 45,000 litigation costs to the appellant. The NLC was directed to register ownership to the respondent, with non-compliance subject to civil and criminal sanctions.

VI. Critical Analysis: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kinley v. Karchung shows careful judicial reasoning in balancing legal rules, environmental protection, and landowner responsibilities. By applying the doctrine of estoppel, the Court made it clear that once a case is settled, it cannot be reopened years later. This prevents endless disputes and maintains trust in the legal system. The Court also highlighted that land ownership comes with responsibilities. Land that was unused and became forest now belongs to the government, supporting Bhutan’s goal of protecting forests. The Court carefully examined documents from nearly twenty years, showing that its decision was based on evidence rather than personal opinion.

At the same time, the decision raises some concerns. Automatically converting unused land to government forest, while environmentally important, can unfairly affect families who cannot use their land immediately. The case also took nearly 19 years to resolve, showing that accessing justice in property disputes can be slow and difficult. Although part of the land (1.34 acres) was given as substitute land to Kinley’s family, the loss of 1.86 acres without compensation may seem unfair.

Overall, the case sets important lessons for Bhutanese property law. Property disputes must be raised quickly, landowners must actively use their land, and government environmental priorities can override private claims. In the long term, this may make landowners develop their land faster to avoid losing it, which could create financial pressure and conflicts with traditional land practices. The decision shows the Court’s effort to balance individual rights with the public good.

VII. Reforms/ Solution 

The issues highlighted in Kinley v. Karchung suggest several reforms to strengthen Bhutan’s land dispute system:

• Faster Resolution: Establish specialized land courts to resolve disputes within 2-3 years rather than decades.

• Better Record Keeping: Digitize land ownership and boundaries to prevent confusion about boundaries and ownership history.

• Early Mediation: Require mediation before litigation to resolve simpler disputes without court intervention.

• Grace Periods: Provide reasonable time periods for landowners to develop property before unused land is declared forest, especially for families with limited resources.

• Fair Compensation: Establish clear compensation standards to ensure families are not left with losses when government environmental policies affect them. 

• Legal Education: Educate citizens about property rights and the importance of timely legal action.

• Land Use Guidance: Provide clear guidance on minimum land use requirements to maintain ownership.

VIII. Recommendations for Landowners

Property owners can take proactive steps to safeguard their land:

• Act promptly if your land is at risk of being declared government property.

• Keep detailed records of ownership and land use.

• Seek legal advice early in case of disputes.

• Understand obligations regarding land use and environmental policies.

IX. Conclusion

The Kinley vs. Karchung case shows that justice is more than resolving property disputes, it’s about balancing people’s rights, protecting the environment, and keeping the legal system fair and reliable. Even though Kinley lost after nearly 20 years, the Supreme Court’s decision reflects a careful and mature approach that considers the bigger picture. For Bhutan, this case is a milestone, showing that courts can make tough decisions while respecting the law. It also reminds us that owning land comes with responsibilities, and that legal systems must find the right balance between individual needs and the common good.

References

1. Kinley v. Karchung, Judgment No. SC (Hung-18-18), Supreme Court of Bhutan, August.3, 2018, pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https://www.judiciary.gov.bt/archives/1697606142-.pdf#page=4&zoom=auto,-112,223

2. Civil and Criminal Procedure Code of Bhutan 2001 § 155, https://oag.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Civil-and-Criminal-Procedure-Code-of-Bhutan-2001English-version0.pdf

3. Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan 2023, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/BHU224230.pdf

4. Guidelines on the New Sathram Compilation 1998, 

This article is authored by Chimmi Sonam Yangchen, Law Student from Bhutan and Trainee of Lets Learn Law Legal Research Training Programme. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.