Ex-PM Nepal, ex-minister Rijal among 97 charged in Morang land swap scam

Madhav Kumar Nepal is a former prime minister, while Minendra Rijal is a Nepali Congress leader and former minister. Both are among 97 people charged by the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, or CIAA, in a case involving public land in Morang. The case concerns an alleged illegal swap and later sale of land linked to Rijal Canning and Company.

The company had been allowed to retain land above the legal ceiling for a fruit-processing factory. The CIAA says the factory was not operated as required. It alleges that officials later removed restrictions on two Biratnagar plots and approved their exchange for cheaper land in Banigama. Nepal led the Cabinet when the exchange was approved, while Rijal coordinated the Cabinet’s Social Committee.

This is Nepal’s second corruption case. He is already being prosecuted over the 2010 Patanjali land scam. In the Morang case, the CIAA seeks damages, prison terms, fines, and confiscation of land. Nepal and Rijal deny or face allegations described in the chargesheet, which must be addressed through the Special Court.

The disputed arrangement involved Rijal Canning and Company’s landholding in Morang. The company had permission to retain 59 bigha, nine kattha and 12 dhur, roughly 40 hectares, beyond the statutory ceiling. That permission was tied to operating a fruit-processing factory. The CIAA says the land was not used for that purpose, so the government decided to confiscate it in 1992.

Instead of completing confiscation, officials later allowed an exchange. Two Biratnagar plots, numbered 48 and 71, covered 4 bigha, five kattha and nine dhur. The company bought an equal area in Banigama for Rs1.285 million. It then sold the Biratnagar land for Rs83.8625 million. The CIAA says restrictions were lifted in 2006, and the exchange was approved in 2009.

The case matters because the CIAA says public land that should have remained government property entered private hands. It alleges that reports and administrative decisions supported the exchange despite earlier findings that the plots were unused and abandoned. The Special Court will consider the charges and requested penalties.

The land exchange involved two Biratnagar plots, numbered 48 and 71 in the records. Together, they covered 4 bigha, five kattha and nine dhur, or approximately 2.9 hectares. Rijal Canning and Company bought an equal area in Banigama for Rs1.285 million. It later sold the Biratnagar plots for Rs83.8625 million.

The recorded difference between those purchase and sale prices was Rs82.5775 million. However, the CIAA used a much higher assessment for the Biratnagar plots. It valued them at Rs734.956 million and identified that amount as the alleged loss to the state. Its reasoning is that the plots should have been confiscated and retained as government or public property.

The figures show the dispute is not limited to the company’s price difference. The CIAA treats the land’s assessed value as the public loss because the state allegedly lost control of property that should never have been transferred privately. The chargesheet seeks Rs734.956 million in damages, along with prison terms, fines, and land confiscation.

The CIAA divided the 97 defendants into three groups. The first included people accused of direct involvement in the alleged offence. The second included people named for recovery of the claimed loss. The third included people whose properties were targeted for confiscation. Forty-six people, including Nepal and Rijal, were listed as directly involved.

The defendants therefore cover more than the politicians who approved or coordinated decisions. They also include former ministers, senior civil servants, land officials, company representatives, and others connected to the alleged transaction or to properties the CIAA wants recovered. The article specifically names former land reform minister Dambar Shrestha and several former secretaries and undersecretaries.

The supplied article does not explain separately why relatives of deceased officials were included. It only describes the three categories and says that some defendants’ properties are targeted for confiscation. That means the stated basis is involvement, recovery, or property-related action, while the precise allegations against each person would be found in the full chargesheet. The case was filed at the Special Court.

A land-ceiling exemption is permission to retain land beyond the ordinary statutory holding limit. In this case, Rijal Canning and Company was allowed to keep 59 bigha, nine kattha and 12 dhur, roughly 40 hectares, in Morang. The permission was not unrestricted. It was granted to support a fruit-processing factory.

The exemption remained valid only while the company operated that facility, according to the chargesheet. The CIAA says the company did not use the land for the required industrial purpose. A 2005 report by the Morang Land Reform Office found that the two Biratnagar plots were unused and abandoned for years. Morang police also sought their confiscation.

The government decided in 1992 to confiscate the property after the condition was allegedly not met. The CIAA says confiscation was not completed. Instead, restrictions on plots 48 and 71 were lifted in 2006, and a later exchange was approved. The allegation is that the exemption’s special purpose was abandoned while the land was transferred into private hands.

When land is granted above the legal ceiling for a specific industrial purpose, the permission depends on meeting that purpose. Here, Rijal Canning and Company was allowed to retain extra land because it was supposed to operate a fruit-processing factory. The CIAA says the company failed to use the land for that purpose.

The government therefore decided in 1992 to confiscate the property. Earlier findings supported that position. A 2005 Morang Land Reform Office report said the two Biratnagar plots were unused and abandoned, while Morang police sought confiscation because the exemption conditions had not been met. These facts form the basis of the CIAA’s allegation.

The disputed outcome was different. The CIAA says restrictions were lifted in 2006, allowing the company to pursue an exchange. The Cabinet’s Social Committee approved it in 2009. The commission argues that the land should instead have been retained as government or public property. It now seeks confiscation, damages, fines, and prison terms through the Special Court.

Land transfers in this case passed through several levels. Land offices kept records and imposed restrictions. Local and district offices provided recommendations. The Morang Land Reform Office later lifted restrictions on plots 48 and 71 after an interpretation of a Supreme Court order. The Ministry of Land Reform and Management then sent the exchange proposal to the Cabinet.

The Cabinet referred it to its Social Committee, which approved the exchange on December 1, 2009. The Cabinet was led by Madhav Kumar Nepal, and Minendra Rijal coordinated the committee. The CIAA alleges that officials approved the proposal despite evidence that the land remained unused and that the company had not met the industrial condition.

The anti-graft body now challenges the legality and consequences of those administrative steps. It filed a chargesheet at the Special Court against 97 defendants. The CIAA seeks Rs734.956 million in damages, prison terms, fines, and confiscation. The court process will determine whether the alleged approvals and transfers amounted to corruption under the charges brought.