9°C

overcast clouds

TFL Updates
London Daily News

Former Nepal PM named in Morang land-swap corruption case

Former Nepal PM named in Morang land-swap corruption case

Nepal’s anti-corruption commission has filed a case naming former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and 96 others over an alleged land swap and sale in Morang district.

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority filed the case at the Special Court on 3 November. Former minister Minendra Rijal is also among those named. The commission is seeking the recovery of 734.956 million Nepalese rupees in alleged losses, as well as penalties and the confiscation of land.

The filing sets out allegations, not findings of guilt. Those named do not all have the same status in the case: some are accused of involvement in the alleged offences, while others have been included for the purposes of recovering money or confiscating property.

Land held under an exemption

The dispute concerns land held by Rijal Canning and Company in eastern Nepal. In 1975, the company was permitted to retain land in Morang and neighbouring Sunsari above the statutory landholding ceiling. The exemption was conditional on the land being used for a fruit-processing industry.

The commission alleges that the conditions were not met. In 1992, the government decided to confiscate land held by the company after an inquiry into whether land granted exemptions was being used for its approved purpose.

That decision did not settle the matter. In 1997, the Supreme Court overturned the confiscation decision and ordered the matter to be handled in accordance with the law.

The commission says a Morang land reform officer later lifted restrictions on two plots in Biratnagar in 2006. It alleges that the officer misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s order and that the plots had not been used for the intended industry.

The commission says a land reform office found in 2005 that the Biratnagar land had remained unused. The commission’s position is that the land should have been brought into public ownership rather than exchanged and sold.

The alleged exchange

The two Biratnagar plots at the centre of the case cover roughly 2.9 hectares. The commission says the company sought to exchange them for land of the same area in the former Banigama village development area of Morang.

In 2009, a land reform ministry proposal reached the cabinet, which referred the matter to its social committee. Madhav Kumar Nepal was prime minister at the time, while Rijal coordinated the committee. The commission alleges that officials advanced the exchange despite evidence that the exemption conditions had been breached.

The commission says the replacement land was bought for 1.285 million rupees and the Biratnagar plots were sold for 83.8625 million rupees. Its claimed loss of 734.956 million rupees is a separate valuation of the Biratnagar land; it is not the sale price alleged by the commission.

Investigators allege that the arrangement allowed the company to sell more valuable land and acquire cheaper property elsewhere. The commission is asking the court to examine the roles of people involved in the recommendations, decisions and transactions. Those claims remain to be tested in court.

Different roles in the case

The commission’s filing places 46 of the 97 defendants, including Nepal and Rijal, in the group it alleges were directly involved. Other people have been named for the recovery of the claimed loss or for confiscation of property now registered in their names. Inclusion for those purposes does not itself mean that a person is accused of taking part in the decisions.

Some officials and company operators have died. The commission has named their legal heirs for recovery purposes. The requested remedies also include prison terms and fines for those accused of offences; the filing is not a finding that the allegations are proved or that the requested orders should be made.

Nepal is also facing a separate corruption case concerning a different land arrangement involving Patanjali Yogpeeth. He has denied wrongdoing in that earlier case. The Morang filing concerns a separate company, property and set of decisions.

Featured image: AI-generated illustration.

Pin It on Pinterest