The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has filed a corruption case at the Special Court against 97 people, including former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, seeking recovery of Rs 734.96 million in alleged losses to the state.
The case concerns the alleged illegal swapping and sale of land granted an exemption from the statutory landholding ceiling to Rijal Canning and Company Pvt Ltd, located in former Biratnagar Sub-metropolitan City-3 of Morang district.
Those named as defendants include former prime minister Nepal and Minendra Prasad Rijal, who served as minister for federal affairs, constituent assembly, parliamentary affairs, and culture, as well as coordinator of the Cabinet’s Social Committee. Special Court Information Officer Parbati Hitan confirmed that the case had been filed against the 97 defendants.
According to Hitan, the defendants are accused of causing the Nepal government a loss of public assets worth Rs 734.96 million through corruption. The CIAA has sought to recover the same amount from the defendants.
According to the Special Court, the CIAA has also sought confiscation of 59 bighas, 9 katthas, and 12 dhurs of land registered in the company’s name in Sunsari and Morang districts.
How did the alleged corruption occur?
According to the CIAA, in 1975, Rijal Canning and Company was permitted to retain 59 bighas, 9 katthas, and 12 dhurs of land in Sunsari and Morang – exceeding the statutory landholding ceiling – on the condition that the land be used for operating a fruit-processing industry.
However, alleging that the company had violated the conditions governing the exemption, the government decided on April 5, 1992, to confiscate 55 bighas, 2 katthas, and 7 dhurs of land registered in the company’s name in Sunsari and Morang. The land was subsequently frozen.
On June 9, 1997, the Supreme Court overturned the government’s decision to confiscate the land and ordered that the matter be handled in accordance with the law.
The CIAA alleges that on August 28, 2006, Umanath Pandey, the then land reform officer at the Land Reform Office in Morang, misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s verdict and decided to release plots numbered 48 and 71 of the land in Biratnagar-3.
The two plots measured 3 bighas, 3 katthas, and 1 dhur, and 1 bigha, 2 katthas, and 8 dhurs, respectively, making a combined total of 4 bighas, 5 katthas, and 9 dhurs.
According to the CIAA, various government reports established that the land was lying unused and had not been used for the intended fruit-processing industry. Instead of confiscating it and restoring it to government or public ownership, the defendants allegedly colluded to initiate a land-swap process that benefited a private company.
Under the plan, the company intended to sell its high-value land in Biratnagar and acquire less expensive land in the former Banigama Village Development Committee (VDC) area of Morang district.
According to the CIAA, the company purchased 4 bighas, 5 katthas, and 9 dhurs of land in Banigama for Rs 1.28 million. In exchange, land registered in the company’s name in Biratnagar was sold for Rs 83.86 million.
However, the CIAA alleges that the process disregarded proper government land valuation and the protection of public assets. Its investigation found that substantial portions of the land purchased in Banigama consisted of pits, unpaved roads, and a stream, and that the company itself had not used the property, the anti-graft body claimed.
The CIAA has concluded that while the land, originally exempted from the statutory ceiling for the purpose of operating a fruit-processing industry, should have been confiscated when the conditions were violated, it was transferred into private ownership through a land swap.
Cabinet decision enabled the land swap
According to the CIAA, officials and employees of various government agencies made recommendations and decisions to facilitate the land exchange.
On November 1, 2009, the then Ministry of Land Reform and Management submitted a proposal to the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers seeking approval for the land swap.
The then chief secretary and prime minister presented the proposal to the Cabinet. At its meeting on December 1, 2009, the Cabinet decided that the matter would be handled in accordance with a decision made by its Social Committee.
The CIAA alleges that Minendra Prasad Rijal, the committee’s coordinator at the time, approved the land swap on December 31, 2009.
The commission has stated that Rijal had family connections with the company’s directors and participated in the decision-making process despite circumstances that presented a potential conflict of interest.
According to the CIAA, the decision allowed the company to sell its more valuable land in Biratnagar and acquire less valuable property in Banigama, causing substantial financial losses to the government.
Who are the defendants?
The 97 defendants include former prime minister Nepal and former minister and Social Committee coordinator Rijal, along with the then secretaries, joint secretaries, undersecretaries, and other officials from various ministries.
Former minister for land reform and management Dambar Shrestha and former chief secretary Madhav Prasad Ghimire, among others, have also been named as defendants for the purpose of recovering the alleged losses.
Officials and employees from the then Department of Land Reform and Management, the Morang Land Revenue Office, the Morang Land Reform Office, the Fruit Development Directorate, the Agriculture Development Office, and Banigama VDC are also among the defendants.
The company’s principal operators – Kulchandra Prasad Rijal, Rajendra Prasad Rijal, Janak Prasad Rijal, Devendra Prasad Rijal, Badri Prasad Rijal, and Pashupati Prasad Rijal – have also been named as defendants.
Former headmasters and principals of schools who allegedly participated in preparing recommendations and reports required for the land swap have also been charged.
The CIAA has sought prison sentences, fines equivalent to the alleged losses, and recovery of the amount under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2002, against the principal offenders. It has also sought additional punishment under Section 24 for some defendants.
Individuals accused of acting as accomplices have been charged under Section 22, with the CIAA seeking punishment equivalent to that imposed on the principal offenders.
The commission said that some individuals allegedly involved in the corruption had died, and their legal heirs had been named as defendants solely for the purpose of recovering the alleged losses.
The CIAA has also sought confiscation of land transferred to various individuals through the swap, under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act. The land is currently registered in the names of various individuals, companies, and institutions.
