Madhav Nepal, Minendra Rijal among 97 accused in Rs735m land-swap case

The land-swap case concerns an alleged illegal exchange and sale of land linked to Rijal Canning and Company. The CIAA says the company had received extra land after getting an exemption from the ownership ceiling, but failed to use it for a required fruit industry. That failure allegedly made the land subject to confiscation and conversion into public property.

Instead, the CIAA alleges that government officials colluded with the company’s owners to avoid confiscation. The company sold two valuable plots in Biratnagar and obtained cheaper land in Banigama, Morang. The difference allegedly harmed the state and gave unlawful benefits to the defendants.

The CIAA filed the case at the Special Court against 97 people, including former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and former minister Minendra Rijal. It seeks recovery of Rs734.96 million in damages. The case matters because it alleges public officials helped turn land meant for public ownership into a private financial advantage.

The CIAA says the alleged land deal caused a loss of Rs734.96 million to the state. That is the amount the anti-graft body has sought to recover as damages through its case at the Special Court. The figure represents the alleged financial harm from exchanging valuable public-bound land for cheaper plots.

The case names 97 accused people. They include former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, Nepali Congress leader and former minister Minendra Rijal, former land reform minister Dambar Shrestha, and several former government officials. Kamala Ghimire, daughter of former chief secretary Madhav Prasad Ghimire, is also listed among the defendants.

The large number of accused suggests that the alleged transfer involved several levels of government administration. The article identifies former secretaries, joint secretaries, undersecretaries, and a section officer among the defendants. The Special Court will handle the corruption case, while the CIAA is seeking recovery of the stated amount.

The CIAA alleges that government officials and the owners of Rijal Canning and Company worked together to avoid the legal consequence of failing to use the land as promised. The company had received an exemption from the land ownership ceiling for a specific industrial purpose. When that purpose was not fulfilled, the land was allegedly liable to confiscation.

Rather than allowing confiscation, officials allegedly helped arrange a land exchange. Rijal Canning and Company sold two high-value plots in Biratnagar and acquired cheaper land in Banigama, Morang. The CIAA says this arrangement bypassed the confiscation process and created an alleged loss of Rs734.96 million for the state.

The accusation is therefore about more than a private land sale. It alleges that public officials used their positions to facilitate the transaction and protect the company’s interests. The case now involves 97 accused people, and the CIAA has filed it at the Special Court seeking damages.

Rijal Canning and Company received an exemption from the land ownership ceiling so it could hold additional land in Sunsari and Morang districts. The exemption was conditional. The company was expected to use that additional land for a fruit industry, rather than retain it without fulfilling the stated purpose.

According to the CIAA, the company failed to use the land as required. That failure meant the Biratnagar plots became liable to confiscation under the arrangement described in the article. Confiscation would have removed the land from the company and converted it into public property.

The alleged wrongdoing began when that expected process was not followed. The CIAA says officials and company owners instead arranged for valuable Biratnagar land to be sold and replaced with cheaper land in Banigama, Morang. The agency claims this avoided public ownership and caused Rs734.96 million in alleged state losses.

Under the alleged arrangement, the ownership of valuable Biratnagar land was changed through a sale rather than allowing the plots to be confiscated. Rijal Canning and Company sold two high-value plots in Biratnagar. The move allegedly helped prevent those plots from becoming public property.

The company then acquired cheaper land in Banigama, Morang. This was the central mechanism of the alleged land swap: valuable plots were exchanged for less expensive ones after the company failed to meet the purpose attached to its land exemption. Government officials allegedly helped facilitate the arrangement.

The CIAA says the difference between the valuable Biratnagar plots and the cheaper Banigama land produced an alleged state loss of Rs734.96 million. It also alleges that the arrangement gave unlawful benefits to the defendants. The anti-graft body has filed the case at the Special Court and sought recovery of that amount.

The CIAA stands for the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority. In the article, it is described as Nepal’s anti-graft body. Its role in this case was to investigate allegations that public officials helped a company avoid land confiscation and obtain an unlawful advantage.

After its investigation, the CIAA filed a corruption case at the Special Court. It named 97 accused, including former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, former minister Minendra Rijal, former officials, and company-linked defendants. The agency alleges that officials colluded with the company’s owners over land in Biratnagar and Banigama.

The CIAA is also seeking recovery of Rs734.96 million in damages. That claim reflects the alleged loss to the state from the land transaction. The article does not describe the court’s final decision, so the allegations remain claims in a case filed before the Special Court.

A land ownership ceiling is a legal maximum on the amount of land an individual, family, or company may own. Governments use ceilings to stop land from becoming concentrated in too few hands and to support broader access to land. The article shows that Rijal Canning and Company needed an exemption to hold additional land.

That exemption came with a condition: the company had to use the extra land in Sunsari and Morang districts for a fruit industry. The CIAA alleges the company did not meet that condition. As a result, the Biratnagar land became liable to confiscation and conversion into public property.

The case illustrates why conditions attached to land exemptions matter. If an exemption is granted for a public or economic purpose but the purpose is not fulfilled, authorities may seek to recover the land. Here, the CIAA alleges officials helped bypass that consequence through a swap for cheaper Banigama land.