KATHMANDU, June 5: The Supreme Court has issued a directive to the local authorities to protect community property, declaring that about 93 ropanis of fallow land usurped by individuals for nearly 30 years, should be registered in the name of the government.

A joint bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Nahakul Subedi, overturning the Special Court's verdict, has determined that corruption occurred by registering government-owned fallow land in the name of individuals. The Supreme Court recently published the full text of the decision taken on March 27, 2023.

The Supreme Court has ordered the cancellation of the registration of 93-2-3-0 ropanis of land in Nawalparasi, previously registered under individuals’ name, and instructed that it be recorded as government/public land and updated in the records accordingly.

"The full text of the judgment states, “According to Section 97 of the Local Government Operation Act, 2074 BS, and Sections 304 and 306 of the National Civil Code, the responsibility of maintaining and protecting government and community properties within their jurisdiction falls on the local administration and local level. As it pertains to the public land with the previous plot number 99, a special directive has been issued to the concerned Land Revenue Office, local administration, and local level authorities to create forests, gardens, and public parks on this land and to ensure their necessary protection and maintenance.'"

The incident dates back to the year 2055 BS. The then Land Revenue Office in Kawasoti, Nawalparasi, had decided to register 93 ropanis of government land in the name of individuals. It was found that most of the public land along the riverbank in wards 1, 2, and 3 of the then Adarsha Village Development Committee in Gaindakot, Nawalparasi, had been registered in the name of an individual through collusion between the employees of the Land Revenue Office and local Ishwar Prasad Paudel.

A corruption case was filed in the Special Court based on complaints submitted to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), alleging that government fallow land was registered in the name of individuals. In 2055 BS, Chiranjivi Lal Rajandari, the then chief of the Land Revenue Office in Kawasoti, decided to register 40 ropanis in the name of Kirtinath Chalise, 26 ropanis in the name of Laxmi Prasad Paudel, and 27 ropanis in the name of Loknath Sapkota. The CIAA filed the corruption case stating that the registration of government land in the names of individuals caused harm to the government. The case was filed against four individuals, including the then chief of the Land Revenue Office.

On February 10, 2010, the Special Court ruled that the claim that the land was registered in the names of individuals with malicious intent and forged documents was not proven. It stated that since there was no evidence to confirm the registration was done with ill intent, the Special Court acquitted Land Revenue Office Chief Chiranjivi Lal, and the landowners Kirtinath, Loknath, and Laxmi Prasad.

Dissatisfied with the Special Court's decision, the CIAA filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. During the 2029 BS land survey, plot number 99 was recorded as barren land in the field book. The team, including the chief Land Revenue Officer and surveyors, repeatedly conducted on-site inspections and reported that the land was indeed government barren land on the Narayani River's bank. The CIAA appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the defendants had maliciously registered government land in their names, thereby committing corruption.

"'Considering the principles of criminal justice and the prevailing legal provisions, it was seen that the defendants should be punished according to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2017," the Supreme Court’s verdict reads.

According to the decision, Chiranjivi Lal Rajbhandari would face a punishment of one to three years of imprisonment, a fine, or both, while the other defendants would face a punishment of three months to three years of imprisonment, a fine, or both, along with the recovery of the claimed amount as per legal provisions. However, considering that the defendants are now over 80 years old, imprisonment is deemed inappropriate. Therefore, the Supreme Court has decided that Chiranjivi Lal Rajbhandari will be fined Rs 5,000, and Kirtinath Chalise, Loknath Sapkota, and Laxmi Prasad Paudel will each be fined Rs 4,000.

The Supreme Court's decision has nullified the Land Revenue Office, Kawasoti's registration decision dated April 8, 1999, which had registered the 93-2-3-0 ropanis of land with the previous plot number 99 in Gaindakot 1 (a), Nawalparasi district, in the names of Kirtinath Chalise, Loknath Sapkota, and Laxmi Prasad Paudel.

According to Section 24 (1) and (2) of the Land Revenue Act, 2034 BS, and Section 305 (2) of the National Civil Code, 2074 BS, the decision states that the land will be maintained as government/public land. 

The Supreme Court has determined that the land was not in the possession of the defendants and that the public fallow land along the riverbank was registered as if it were privately owned. Upon reviewing the dispute, the report submitted by Chief Land Revenue Officer Binod Kumar Adhikari on October 9, 2001, mentions that the entire land is government fallow land.

The on-site study report by the survey team, including the Land Revenue Officer, dated March 23, 2005, also indicated that the disputed barren land contained a resting place with banyan and peepal trees, public tree plantations, a local club, and a temple. The Supreme Court stated, "It has been found that the disputed plot of land is government/public land, and the registration of this plot of land in the names of individuals is automatically nullified."

The Supreme Court explained, “In fact, the term corruption is so broad that limiting it to a specific definition is inherently difficult and risky. This is why the legislature has not provided a precise definition but has instead mentioned certain offenses and their punishments that will be treated as corruption. If an act is done with good intent, it cannot be considered an offense of corruption. However, if the same act is done with the intent to illegally benefit oneself or someone else, or to cause harm to the government or a public institution, it falls within the definition of a corruption offense.”

Section 24 (1) of the Land Revenue Act (Fifth Amendment), 2034 BD, stipulates that government or public land cannot be registered in the name of any individual. Subsection (2) of the Act further mentions that if any government or public land is registered in the name of an individual and cultivated, such registration shall be automatically nullified.

The same act, in Section 2 (b), defines forest, jungle, river, stream, river basin, pond, lake, marsh, canal, pool, and wetland areas as government land. Section 2 (c) defines paths, water reservoirs, cremation sites, ferry docks, bridges, grazing lands, etc., as public land that can be used by anyone, not just certain individuals.

 
• Supreme_Court
 
• fallow_land
 
• registered
 
• individuals
 
• government_ownership