KP Sharma Oli himself got involved in the land case of Giribandhu Tea Estate, there was no investigation into it. The authority did not prosecute Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai, who were involved in the embezzlement of the land of Lalita Niwas. The case filed against Madhav Nepal in the special court is pending. Arju Rana Deuba was not questioned.
What you should know
The fact that the mafia along with the government officials embezzled about 113 ropani land of Lalita Niwas in Baluwatar was kept secret for a long time. But when the investigation committee led by Sharda Prasad Trital and its report came out, the collusion of former prime minister, former minister, various businessmen and leaders in the land scam was revealed.
The land belonging to the official residence of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice and Speaker was looted from 2049 to 2069. After 2017, the land grabbing of Lalita Niwas was started by misinterpreting the 2047 cabinet decision to return the property lost to various individuals for their involvement in the struggles for the restoration of democracy. The land of Lalita Niwas was not confiscated during the Panchayat but was taken by the government after giving compensation. Later in 2066, 2067 and 2069 more land was expropriated by decision of the Council of Ministers.
After the details of Trital Committee's report were published by the media, the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority started an investigation. The Authority filed a case on 22 Jan 2076 against 175 people including former ministers Vijay Kumar Gachchdar, Dumbar Shrestha and Chandradev Joshi. Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai, then leaders of the decision-making Council of Ministers, were not made defendants.
When the Prime Minister of Nepal was in Chait 2066 and Baisakh 2067, the Council of Ministers decided to expand the Prime Minister's residence according to the proposal of the Ministry of Physical Infrastructure. Based on that decision, 12 people who were not Mohi killed more than 13 plants. In 2069, the Bhattarai-led Cabinet approved the registration of three plantations in the name of Pashupati Tikinya Guthi. The then Chief Secretary Leelamani Paudel took the proposal to the Cabinet. Paudel was also not prosecuted.
The land of Lalita Niwas was also seen in the name of UML leader Bishnu Prasad Paudel's son Naveen and Supreme Court judge Kumar Regmi. But they were not made defendants as both of them had agreed to leave (return) the land.
When the special court pronounced its verdict in February 2080, three former ministers Gachchdar, Shrestha and Joshi were acquitted. 78 people were found guilty by the special government officials, middlemen, land mafia and people who took illegal benefits involved in making government land private. Similarly, it was decided to confiscate the land in the name of 75 people, including 65 people who currently have land in their own name and 10 who have acquired land as land owners through Sattabharan.
The special court convicted the former chief commissioner of the authority, Deep Basnyat, former secretary Chhabiraj Pant, as well as Kaladhar Deuja, Surendraman Kapali, Yukt Prasad Shrestha, Jagat Prasad Pudasaini. Ramkumar Subedi and Shobhakant Dhakal, who played a role in bringing the land into the name of the individual, were each sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 80 lakh 48 thousand. In the decision of
special, the highest fine and confiscation of land was decided against Meen Bahadur Gurung, who is also the owner of Bhatbhateni Developers. Gurung was sentenced to a fine of 8 million 48 thousand and two years in prison for the crime of illegally taking government land in his name, and the land owned by Bhatbhateni developers, he, his son, daughter-in-law, brother, etc., will be confiscated.
Former Election Commissioner Sudhir Shah, who attached land to his wife's name when he was a property officer, was not prosecuted, but his wife Urmila Shah was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of 759,400 rupees. On 20 February 2081, the authority appealed to the Supreme Court after the Special Court acquitted some people. Missiles in the Supreme Court have been burnt before even a single hearing could be held in the appeal.
The 'Government written deed' case in the Lalita residence land case is pending in the Kathmandu District Court. On 10 August 2080, a case was filed by the District Public Prosecutor's Office Kathmandu based on the investigation of the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police. The District Public Prosecutor's Office filed a case against Likhat Kirte after the CIB submitted an investigation into the crime of 'organised kirte' and submitted a report. At that time, 311 people including 18 defendants were made opponents. Among them, 290 people were prosecuted and some were made opponents for the purpose of land return. The court is making a statement.
The case against the former Prime Minister of Nepal and Bhattarai is also pending in the Supreme Court. Along with them, there is still a way for the authority to investigate UML leader Vishnu Paudel's son Naveen and Supreme Court judge Kumar Regmi. The authority will have to bring a supplementary charge sheet for this. But according to authority sources, there is a possibility that the supplementary charge sheet will be submitted only after the Supreme Court's order.
Confusion in the investigation of Balmandir-Bansbari land case
There are two famous cases that have not been investigated under the guise of state power - Bansbari and Balmandir land. People close to the Congress leaders were seen involved in the embezzlement of land in both these places. On 27 Baisakh 2081, the Kathmandu District Court issued arrest warrants against 20 people on charges of fraud by renting the land of the children's temple in Naxal at a cheap rate. Among them, Tulsi Narayan Shrestha, the then Vice President of Children's Organization, was arrested on 25th June. He was later released. A fraud case was registered against 17 people on 24 Baisakh 2082.
A case was also filed against the then Deputy Prime Minister and Urban Development Minister Prakashman Singh's sister Rita Singh Vaidya. It was decided to lease the land when Vaidya was the president of Bal Sangathan. Of the 119 ropani 12 annas 3 paisa land in the name of Bal Sangathan (Bal Mandir), 28 ropani 5 annas 1 paisa were leased to Vrihaspati Vidya Sadan. Out of the leased land, 5 ropani land has been leased to Rai School since 2076.
In 2059, although there was an agreement to lease the land until 2089, with 17 years left for that period, on 3 July 2072, an agreement was reached that the land could be used by Vrihaspati Vidya Sadan for an additional 38 years. Purushottamaraj Joshi, the then president of the Children's Organization, Vaidya and Vrihaspati Vidya Sadan, signed the agreement.
among others who filed the case are the then general secretaries of the organization Ganesh Dutt Shrestha, Subas Kumar Pokharel, Shyam Kumar Ale, Prachandaraj Pradhan, Ramkaji Kone, the then deputy general secretary Suman Shakya, the then member of the organization and resource and operational subcommittee coordinator Krishna Bahadur Sah, the then treasurer of the organization Manohar Gopal Shrestha and the then deputy treasurer Deepak Das Shrestha. On behalf of Brihaspati Vidya Sadan, the then president Purushottamraj Joshi, the then authorized president Chiranjeevi Tiwari, the then director of Vidya Sadan Praveenraj Joshi, Riddha Sanghai, Abhinav Singhania, Siddharth Kedia, Kritiprasad Pandey and Murari Nidhi Tiwari are present.
A case of fraud was filed on the grounds that a corruption case should be filed for misuse of government land. The District Court has not heard it. It is not certain when the trial will take place after the district court itself was set on fire during the 24 August demonstration.
The embezzlement case of 10 ropani land in Bansbari is connected with businessman Arun Kumar Chaudhary. On 18th January 2080, businessman Chaudhary was arrested on the charge of encroaching on the land of Bansbari leather shoe factory. Police also nabbed Sanjay Thakur of CG Chandbagh Residency and Ajit Narayan Singh Thapa, the then Executive Head of Bansbari Leather Shoe Factory. They were released on January 24 by court order. The then Congress MP Vinod Chaudhary also gave a statement on 8 March 2080 when he reached the district attorney's office in Kathmandu. Vinod and Arun are brothers.
The then Attorney General Ramesh Badal decided not to pursue the case on 22 Jan 2081. It has been decided not to pursue the case as the land of the bamboo plantation has already come under the name of the government. But the question has been raised that they have been given immunity without compensation for using government land for more than four decades.
Three ex-ministers caught in litchi plantation case, two charged
The authority has filed a corruption case on Wednesday against 7 people, including former ministers Rajkumar Gupta and Ranjita Shrestha, who were involved in the case of grabbing 134 ropani of lychee plantation in Pokhara Batulechaur. But ex-minister Balram Adhikari and ex-secretary Arjun Prasad Pokharel, who were involved in this case, have been given immunity for the time being as they will be prosecuted separately. There does not appear to be any reliable basis for filing supplementary charges against them.
After the abolition of Birta in 2016, the struggle started two years ago to grab the land of Batulechaur, which was to be turned into a raker. After this scenario was not completed, the then chief shipping officer of Kaski, Ramchandra Adhikari, was transferred on 18th December 2081. A "deal" was also made to appoint a person of his choice as the chairman of the Land Problem Solution Commission Kaski. After the audio of the bribe deal was released last June, the authority investigated.
53 lakhs were paid to middleman Sujankumar Tamang for the transfer of chief land authority officer Thamauti and 25 lakhs were paid to facilitate the appointment of Kham Bahadur Pun as the chairman of the land problem resolution commission Kaski, according to the authority. Investigation has also found that 10 days after the transfer of the chief cargo officer from Kaski, the then Federal Affairs and General Administration Minister Gupta, East Land Management Minister Shrestha, middleman Tamang and Pun reached the minister's residence at Bhainsepati in Lalitpur. It is also mentioned in the authority's charge sheet that then minister Gupta, former minister Shrestha and middleman Tamang went to Pokhara to see the land.
The middleman Tamang had said that he had paid a bribe of 32 lakhs to the then Minister of Land Management Balram Adhikari and 5 lakhs to Secretary Arjan Prasad Pokharel. After the case of land grabbing became public, the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli forced General Administration Minister Rajkumar Gupta to resign. Adhikari, Minister of Land Management, was in office until the Gen-G rebellion brought down the Oli government. Oli also tried to protect former minister Shrestha, who was the chairman of civil liberties in this case.
Giribandhu Tea Estate: A Story of Pressure and Influence
One of the few limited cases that has identified Omprakash Aryal is the Jhapa Giribandhu Tea Estate land dispute. The same advocate Aryal has become the home minister of the country after the Gen-G movement of 23-24 August.
How did 'policy corruption' happen by changing the law for commercial purposes in the land where restrictions were applied? Aryal argued at length in the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. Aryal, who has studied the history of that case, is now leading the investigation agency himself, so what will happen to this case now? Interest among the general public has increased. Not only the
Jhapa's 'Giribandhu Tea Estate' case is notorious as a corruption scandal suppressed by political pressure and influence. The law was amended when UML President KP Sharma Oli was the Prime Minister so that the land given for operating tea plantations under limited concessions can be sold for speculation. His council of ministers also decided to approve admissions in exchange for the loss of the interests of traders and the state. In this case, Aryal claimed that there was a collusion between employees and businessmen along with then Land Reforms Minister Padma Aryal.
There is a provision in the law related to land that the purpose for which the person/organization has purchased the land with a limited discount cannot be registered contrary to it and the government can nationalize such land if it is found to have been misused. However, Prime Minister Oli of the UML-Maoist coalition of the CPN era amended the Land Act so that the land occupied by the tea plantations could be bought and sold after clearing the land occupied by the tea plantations for the approval of settlement.
Aryal and others approached the Supreme Court against the government's decision. All the writs were led by Aryal. The Supreme Court ruled on the matter for which the land was purchased with a limited exemption, and the Supreme Court overturned the decision made by the Oli government on 24th January 2080, stating that there would be 'strict conditions and restrictions' on the sale of land. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had decided that if the land of Giribandhu tea garden was taken in someone's name in the past, it would also be void.
The illegal decisions made by Oli's cabinet, there was no investigation on any of the officers/officials of the then Ministry of Land Management, instead UML-Congress made Oli the prime minister last time. And Oli tried to open the way to allow the exchange of demarcated land by revising the land bill. The bill was stopped after opposition within the government.
How will the current government investigate the case of those involved in the illegal decision-making process of the past? That is of interest. It was decided that "in the case of granting the limitation exemption, the land is used for different purposes without being used or used for the purpose as mentioned, or the land is left empty/barren, and immediately and compulsorily, the land found to be more than that limit should be acquired/made available in the name of the Government of Nepal". Home Minister Aryal had also filed a contempt of court case saying that the judgment had not been implemented for a long time. In the contempt case registered in the Supreme Court on 24th January 2081, the court also issued a show cause order against the then Prime Minister Oli.
Even if the authority does not investigate this, the CIB and others can investigate, the home minister can take the initiative. Home Minister Aryal has said that he has directed the police and CIB to conduct a fair and independent investigation into all corruption files, not just Giribandhu.
how did the game?
Oli-led Cabinet meeting on 13 Baisakh 2078 decided to approve Giribandhu Tea Estate to lease 343 Bigha 19 Kattha 12 Dhur land in Birtamod Municipality-6 of Jhapa. The Council of Ministers meeting had decided to allow land leases to be fixed in accordance with Clause (2) of the restrictive clause of Section 12 of the Land Act, 2021 and Sub-rule (6) of Rule 16 'A' of the Land Rules, 2021.
Before the decision was taken, the Oli-led government had made arrangements for the sale, lease and transfer of land in excess of the limit in the name of industries by making the eighth amendment to the Land Act, 2021 in 2076. Among the additions made after Section 12 of the original Act, Sub-section (1) of Section 12 'C' provides for the sale of land and Sub-section (2) provides for the sale of land.
In subsection (1) of Section 12 'C' which came into effect after the Eighth Amendment, it is said that "...if an industry, establishment, company or organization is dissolved for any reason or goes into liquidation, it shall not be considered as an obstacle to the sale and distribution under the approval of the Government of Nepal for the purpose of changing the liability of such industry, establishment, company or organization under this Act". Similarly, in sub-section (2) of Section 12 'C', it is said that "If the application showing reasonable and sufficient reasons for transferring or leasing an agricultural farm, industry, establishment, company or organization established on the land within the limits specified by the notified order of the Government of Nepal, the land occupied by such agricultural farm, industry, establishment, company or organization may be subject to this Act, the Government of Nepal may give approval for leasing or transfer to another place in accordance with the conditions specified."
Until the Eighth Amendment in the original Act, there was a provision that land companies exceeding the limit could not sell, lease and transfer rights. Moreover, the government of that time published a notice through the gazette that it was decided to exempt the industries including Giribandhu Tea Estate only as long as the land was used for tea industry. In the gazette dated 11 January 2029, it was stated that it has been decided to give a limited exemption to Sati Tea Estate, Budhkaran and Sons Tea Company Pvt Ltd, Mittal Tea Estate and Giribandhu Tea Estate for as long as the tea industry land remains in use.
Patanjali's case awaiting the future of Nepal's former prime minister
The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority filed a case in a special court on 22 June 2082, making 93 people including former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal as defendants in the Patanjali land case.
This is the first time in the history of the authority and the corruption of Nepal that a corruption case was filed against the former prime minister. Earlier, the authority had made only high-ranking people up to former ministers defendants in corruption cases. The Authority also demanded a fine of 185.85 million rupees against Nepal and a prison sentence according to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Nepal, on the other hand, is defending itself by saying that it is revenge.
After the corruption case was filed, the post of Nepal's parliamentarian was automatically suspended, and there was a question that he should not remain under the leadership of the United Socialist Party, which is the president, but Nepal has not separated from the post of president. After the corruption case was registered against the former Prime Minister, the decision of the Council of Ministers was not exempted under the cover of policy decision. What was the
allegation?
Patanjali Yogpeeth had purchased land at a limited concession for the cultivation of herbs and the construction of an Ayurveda hospital. After it was found that the land which had been given as a limitation exemption by the decision of the then government was later sold by the decision of the cabinet, the authority started an investigation. In the Land Act, 2021, there is a provision for the provision of land to be exempted from restrictions imposed by the government to carry out any productive industry or business. But the land purchased in such a facility cannot be sold. The question arose when the government allowed the sale of the land obtained under the limitation exemption.
On 18th January 2066, Madhav Kumar Nepal's Council of Ministers gave permission to Patanjali to buy 815 ropani land in Kavre. At that time, Patanjali had bought about 600 ropani of land. Some of the land was purchased earlier. Within a few months of buying the land, Patanjali decided to sell the land.
Legally, demarcated land cannot be sold. There is a legal provision that concession land is automatically nationalized when the company is dissolved. But in 2066, the then government decided to allow the land to be sold. It was a glaring fact of how the demarcated land that was approved to open the industry was eaten/sucked in collusion and involvement from the staff of the estate to the Prime Minister - the Patanjali land case.
Indian yoga guru Ramdev's Patanjali Yogpeeth and Ayurveda Company has been claimed in the indictment to embezzle 593 ropani land bought at a limited discount in Kavre to build structures including Yogashala, Patanjali industry and study center in Nepal. The case filed against the Prime Minister of Nepal in 2066/67, then Land Reforms Minister Dambar Shrestha, Chief Secretary Madhav Ghimire, Land Reforms Secretary Chhabiraj Pant, Patanjali Nepal Chief Shaligram Singh as defendants is under special consideration.
The Cabinet of Ministers led by Nepal approved the purchase of 815 ropani land at a limited discount, but before that Patanjali had retained the land in his name after getting approval from the Cabinet after the 'land bought in agreement'. Later the land bought in Banepa of Kavre was sold and a small amount of land was bought in Dhulikhel and the demarcated land was embezzled. Unified Socialists and Nepal itself have been defending themselves by saying that the
case was filed out of political revenge. Not only that, even though the authority has been prevented from filing a case saying that it has no right to file a case against the decision of the Council of Ministers, the case has reached the court and is in the process of judicial determination. However, in cases related to such embezzlement, people in power embezzle public/government property but always stay out of the scope of investigation and take the guise of power. However, the question of how the interim government will proceed to address the demands and agenda raised in the uprising has emerged as an important issue.
During the demonstration on August 24, the special court was also attacked. Although the Special Court was not completely targeted, it was attacked in some parts. However, the special court came into operation after Dasain. Due to an attack on the Supreme Court's server, the trial could not begin. In the next few days, the server will be opened and the trial will begin.
special has issued a deadline in the name of all defendants in the Patanjali case, while some people including Nepal have appeared in court and have been released on bail. On June 11, he appeared before the Nepal Special Court and was released on 3.5 million bail. The court is preparing to hold the final hearing of the other defendants after their deadline has passed. Nepal is waiting to know when the court will hold the final hearing.
Due to the Gen-G movement, the pressure within the party will increase as old leaders can no longer be accepted, and Nepal and the Unified Samajwadi Party do not seem to be in a position to go to the elections with a corruption case in the court. Therefore, he is under pressure to either unite the party or hand over the leadership. Similarly, even though the special court acquitted Nepal after a quick hearing during this period, there is still a way to go to the Supreme Court. If he is found guilty, his political career will come to an end.
Arju was not even questioned in the Tikapur land scam
In the land scam in Tikapur, Kailali, the Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission initiated a case against 249 people on 25 Jan 2080, in which officials, employees and land owners of Tikapur Municipal Committee were made defendants. No case was filed against Congress leader and former foreign minister Arju Rana Deuba and Civil Immunity Party founder Reshlamal Chaudhary, who were involved in land irregularities.
Tikapur Development Committee was formed on July 1, 2028 by publishing a notice in the gazette in accordance with section 3 of the Development Committee Act 2013 to establish a settlement in Tikapur by clearing the forest area. The chairman of the committee was empowered to distribute up to 4 bighas and 4 bighas of land to one person.
At that time, the goal was to open an agricultural farm in 1000 bighas of Tikapur area, to do mechanical cultivation, to distribute 800 bighas to squatters and farmer families, to protect 373 bighas of rivers, to build roads and to build a town. It was said that during the establishment of the city, land would be sold and distributed to each family at the rate of 4/4 of the land through competition, the price of the city area would be fixed by the government and the price of land in other areas would be fixed at 1 thousand rupees per plot.
Khadga Bahadur Singh was the president of Tikapur Development Committee from 2028 to 2044. He was given ministerial powers and facilities. The presidents after him were given the right to distribute land subject to the law. The land was extorted by misusing that right.
When Nain Bahadur Swaran, the chairman of the development committee, was the chairman, Arju took three kattha seven dhur ghaderi in Tikapur area. His application was registered on 13 Baisakh 2054 and it was found in the investigation of the authority that the committee took notice on 15 Baisakh. But the authority did not even question him.
Chaudhary was found to have purchased five plots of land in the name of 'Phoolbari' television. Chowdhury said that after he found out that the committee created fake documents and distributed the land, he used the access of journalists to take the land in 2065. According to the
rule, only those who received more money by publishing a public notice should have distributed the sale. That did not happen in the case of Arju. He did not find in the decision book of the committee that Ghaderi was found under what criteria. According to the authority, it was found that instead of Arju purchasing the land himself, the officials of the development committee allocated the land in his name. After the land embezzlement was exposed, Arju defended herself by saying that she had purchased land in Tikapur. He said that he bought 3 7 dhur land by paying 50,000 at the rate of 15,000 rupees per lot.
The special court convicted 87 people in the case filed by the authority on 25th December 2081. Netraprasad Joshi, the then chairman of the committee, and Ganesh Singh Rawal, sub-committee coordinator, were sentenced to one year and six months in prison. It was decided that the buyer of the land will be imprisoned for three months and fined. The court held that all the land will be in the name of the committee. Along with this, the land in the name of Arju and Chowdhury also belongs to the committee.
The authority has appealed to the Supreme Court against the verdict given by the bench of the then chairman of the special court Teknarayan Kunwar and members Tejnarayan Singh Rai and Ritendra Thapa. Since the dispute has reached the Supreme Court, a supplementary charge sheet may be filed against Arju, but it seems that the authority will have to re-investigate for that.
