{"id":2,"slug":"giribandhu-tea-estate-land-swap","public_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/case/giribandhu-tea-estate-land-swap","offence_type":"CORRUPTION","case_type":"CORRUPTION","state":"PUBLISHED","title":"Giribandhu Tea Estate Land Swap Scandal","short_description":"","authors":[{"slug":"damodar-dahal","display_name":"Damodar Dahal","name_ne":"दामोदर दाहाल","photo_url":"https://jawafdehi.org/assets/teammembers/damodar.webp","title":"Software Engineer","has_public_page":true},{"slug":"rujit-kafle","display_name":"Rujit Kafle","name_ne":"रुजित काफ्ले","photo_url":"https://jawafdehi.org/assets/teammembers/rujit.webp","title":"Caseworker","has_public_page":true}],"case_publish_date":"2026-07-22","public_edit_history":[],"public_notes":"**Case Amended by Rujit Kafle on 2 July 2026.**\n\nPhoto: Giri Bandhu Tea Estate, from the case materials. Portrait: KP Sharma Oli, Prime Minister's Office (CC BY-SA 4.0), via Wikimedia Commons, modified.","thumbnail":{"src":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/e1d14600090f0805a42696bf8950dfc59c2f12b9ab63c36f2ac18bd4e9ef6b41.webp","srcset":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/6517e298429070b26ad8cdc2be547eb0672f7f52187f3cc4cc675f4cbf94acd5.webp 400w, https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/f3632e07dd4ef2c453b1d799ebfdd70158c4f7d717b9619d05d4a594feb1a6f4.webp 800w, https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/e1d14600090f0805a42696bf8950dfc59c2f12b9ab63c36f2ac18bd4e9ef6b41.webp 1200w","width":1200,"height":675,"alt":""},"banner":{"src":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/6f16aa6eac685374f68eb2301c13de92767847a42cc1c68087ec5daaba7b79f5.webp","srcset":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/7d3ebdbbdaeebb987e62c573c5991de79af07ab9c56523369dcb65247684f89b.webp 640w, https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/8460162c8389548c3f324ed6e0e28e84b1d57d4b7cfa5e16cf8191995282289d.webp 1280w, https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/6f16aa6eac685374f68eb2301c13de92767847a42cc1c68087ec5daaba7b79f5.webp 1600w","width":1600,"height":704,"alt":""},"thumbnail_image_id":383,"banner_image_id":208,"thumbnail_url":"https://english.khabarhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/giribandhu.jpg","banner_url":"https://english.khabarhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/giribandhu.jpg","case_start_date":"2019-02-18","case_end_date":null,"dates":{"stages":[{"stage":"initial","start":"2019-02-18","courtcase_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/courtcase/supreme/075-wo-0696"}]},"status":"ongoing","case_track":null,"status_override":null,"proceedings_started_on":"2019-02-18","proceedings_decided_on":null,"appeal_verdicts":{},"appeal_parties":{},"entities":[{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/location/district/jhapa-np0104","display_name":"Jhapa","entity_type":"AdministrativeArea,jawafdehi:District","type":"location","outcome":null,"notes":"","name":{"en":"Jhapa","ne":"झापा"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/bhakta-raj-bharati-advocate-fca3e0","display_name":"Bhakta Raj Bharati (Advocate)","entity_type":"Person","type":"petitioner","outcome":null,"notes":"","name":{"en":"Bhakta Raj Bharati (Advocate)","ne":"Bhakta Raj Bharati (Advocate)"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/om-prakash-mishra-advocate-7bc322","display_name":"Om Prakash Mishra (Advocate)","entity_type":"Person","type":"petitioner","outcome":null,"notes":"","name":{"en":"Om Prakash Mishra (Advocate)","ne":"Om Prakash Mishra (Advocate)"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/om-prakash-aryal-661f55","display_name":"Om Prakash Aryal","entity_type":"Person","type":"petitioner","outcome":null,"notes":"","name":{"en":"Om Prakash Aryal","ne":"Om Prakash Aryal"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/organization/political_party/communist-party-of-nepal-unified-marxist-leninist","display_name":"CPN-UML (Yemale)","entity_type":"Organization","type":"related","outcome":null,"notes":"","name":{"en":"CPN-UML (Yemale)","ne":"CPN-UML (Yemale)"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/kp-sharma-oli","display_name":"KP Sharma Oli","entity_type":"Person","type":"alleged","outcome":null,"notes":"","name":{"en":"KP Sharma Oli","ne":"KP Sharma Oli"},"image":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/c371bb3cd1d9c17b430b9185348ee293b33cc9f2ec55424784c9c29142bbbae1.webp"},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/deepak-malhotra-businessman-land-broker-1f2590","display_name":"Deepak Malhotra (Businessman/Land Broker)","entity_type":"Person","type":"accused","outcome":"charged","notes":"","name":{"en":"Deepak Malhotra (Businessman/Land Broker)","ne":"Deepak Malhotra (Businessman/Land Broker)"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/tek-narayan-pandey-then-secretary-of-land-management-5de53d","display_name":"Tek Narayan Pandey","entity_type":"Person","type":"accused","outcome":"charged","notes":"","name":{"en":"Tek Narayan Pandey","ne":"Tek Narayan Pandey (Then-Secretary of Land Management)"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/padma-aryal-then-minister-for-land-management-734b5a","display_name":"Padma Aryal (Then-Minister for Land Management)","entity_type":"Person","type":"alleged","outcome":null,"notes":"","name":{"en":"Padma Aryal (Then-Minister for Land Management)","ne":"Padma Aryal (Then-Minister for Land Management)"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/government-of-nepal-k-p-sharma-oli-administration-e8dd75","display_name":"Government of Nepal (K.P. Sharma Oli Administration)","entity_type":"Person","type":"alleged","outcome":null,"notes":"","name":{"en":"Government of Nepal (K.P. Sharma Oli Administration)","ne":"Government of Nepal (K.P. Sharma Oli Administration)"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/chhatra-bahadur-giri-director-chairman-d13d0e","display_name":"Chhatra Bahadur Giri (Director/Chairman)","entity_type":"Person","type":"accused","outcome":"charged","notes":"","name":{"en":"Chhatra Bahadur Giri (Director/Chairman)","ne":"Chhatra Bahadur Giri (Director/Chairman)"},"image":null},{"nes_id":"https://jawafdehi.org/entity/person/giribandhu-tea-estate-pvt-ltd-f0347d","display_name":"Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.","entity_type":"Organization","type":"accused","outcome":"charged","notes":"","name":{"en":"Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.","ne":"Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd."},"image":null}],"tags":["Policy Corruption","Land Grab","Abuse of Authority","Supreme Court","Jhapa","K.P. Sharma Oli","Land Management","Giribandhu"],"description":"**Short overview of the Case**\n\nFollowing the introduction of the Land Concerning Act, 2021 B.S., Nepal established limits on the amount of land that one person could own. In the Terai, a person could own up to 28 bighas of land, including residential land. In the hills, the limit was 75 ropanis, and in the Kathmandu Valley, it was 30 ropanis. Any land owned above these limits was to be taken over by the government. However, land used for agriculture-based industries and businesses could be exempt from these land ceiling limits. Using this exemption, some large landowners in Jhapa District started tea plantations to keep land that exceeded the legal ceiling. As a result, Giribandhu Tea Estate was established. According to a government notice published in the Nepal Gazette on 11 Poush 2029 B.S., the Tea Estate was allowed to retain 342 bighas, 19 katthas, and 12 dhurs of land as a land ceiling exemption. Today, the Tea Estate is located in Birtamod Municipality and Arjundhara Municipality in Jhapa, on both the northern and southern sides of the East–West Highway. It is estimated that the company still owns around 280 bighas of land.\n\nAfter the restoration of democracy in 2046 B.S., the Land Concerning Act was amended, and the land ceiling in the Terai was reduced to 11 bighas. However, this new limit did not apply to Giribandhu Tea Estate because it had already received a legal exemption. Around 2060–2061 B.S., some of the Tea Estate's land was sold. Later, on 28 Magh 2070 B.S., during a government led by the Nepali Congress, it was alleged that land brokers began efforts to facilitate the sale, exchange, and transfer of the company's land. On 13 Baisakh 2078 B.S., the Council of Ministers, led by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli approved the exchange of 343 bighas, 19 katthas, and 12 dhurs of Giribandhu Tea Estate's land in Birtamod Municipality-6. The decision was made under Section 12 of the Land Concerning Act, 2021 B.S., and Rule 16A of the Land Rules, 2021 B.S. Public interest petitioner filed writ petitions before challenging the Cabinet's decision. On 27 Falgun 2078 B.S., the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court issued an interim order preventing the government from implementing the Cabinet's decision.\n\n\n\n \n**1. Summary of the Writ Petitions** \n\n**Summary of the Writ Petition of Om Prakash Aryal (078-WC-0004)**\n\nThe petitioner argued that the Land Concerning  Act, 2021 (B.S.) sets a maximum limit (land ceiling) on how much land a person or company may own, except where a special exemption is granted for specific public purposes such as agricultural industries. In 1972 (2029 B.S.), Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. received a land-ceiling exemption to operate a tea plantation, on the condition that the land would be used only for tea cultivation. The petitioner claimed that the Eighth Amendment to the Land Concerning Act (2076 B.S.), the subsequent Rules, and the 2078 Land Ceiling Exemption Order were enacted mainly to allow the company to exchange, transfer, or commercially use its exempted land. According to the petitioner, these legal amendments were designed to bypass an earlier interim order of the Supreme Court that had prevented such land transfers. He argued that allowing exempted land to be sold, exchanged, transferred, or used for housing and real-estate business defeats the very purpose of land reform and land ceiling laws.\nThe petitioner further claimed that the amendments violate the Constitution by promoting private commercial interests over socialism, social justice, land reform, environmental protection, farmers' rights, and public interest.\nHe contended that land exempted from the ceiling remains national property in substance and should be returned to the Government if it is no longer used for its approved purpose. Therefore, he requested the Court to declare the challenged provisions of the Land Concerning Act, Land Rules, and the 2078 Order unconstitutional, and to quash the Cabinet decision permitting the transfer/exchange of Giribandhu Tea Estate's land.\n\n**Summary of the Writ Petition of Bhakta Raj Bhattarai and Others (078-WC-0012)**\n\nThe petitioners argued that Giribandhu Tea Estate had received a land-ceiling exemption solely to operate a tea plantation, which supports employment, tea production, and the national economy. They alleged that the company had already sold part of the exempted land and intended to exchange valuable urban land for cheaper land elsewhere, ultimately converting the original tea estate into residential plots. According to the petitioners, the amendments to the Land Concerning Act and Rules were made specifically to legalize these transactions after the Supreme Court had previously restrained them. They claimed that these amendments were intended to benefit a few private individuals rather than protect the tea industry or serve the public interest. The petitioners argued that converting productive agricultural land into housing or commercial property would reduce agricultural production, harm the environment, fragment farmland, and threaten workers' livelihoods. They further alleged that the Cabinet's decision amounted to an abuse of executive power and constituted policy-level corruption. The petitioners requested the Court to invalidate the amended legal provisions, cancel the Cabinet's decision, prohibit the sale, exchange, transfer, or plotting of the exempted land, require the Government to reclaim the excess land if the company no longer operates the tea estate, and direct investigations into possible abuse of authority and corruption.\n\n **Summary of the Writ Petition of Om Prakash Mishra (076-WC-0030)**\n\nThe petitioner argued that the land-ceiling exemption under the Land Concerning Act is granted only for a specific agricultural purpose and only as long as that purpose continues. He contended that the exempted land effectively belongs to the State, while the company only has the right to use it under the prescribed conditions. He challenged the provision introduced by the Eighth Amendment that permits the sale of exempted land when a company is dissolved or goes into liquidation. According to the petitioner, this provision contradicts the original purpose of the Land Act and is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees relating to equality, property, and employment. He argued that the amendment was enacted to facilitate the disposal of public property rather than protect public interest. Therefore, he requested the Supreme Court to declare the challenged provision unconstitutional and prevent its implementation.\n\n**In overall**\n\n The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Land Concerning Act, the Land Rules, and the Government's land ceiling exemption policy. They contended that Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. was granted a land ceiling exemption in 1972 (2029 B.S.) solely for the purpose of operating a tea plantation, but the Eighth Amendment to the Land Concerning Act later permitted such exempted land to be sold, exchanged, or relocated, thereby defeating the original objectives of the land ceiling law. According to the petitioners, the amendment was introduced specifically to benefit Giribandhu Tea Estate and to circumvent an earlier interim order of the Supreme Court. They further argued that the Council of Ministers' decision of 13 April 2021 (2078/01/13 B.S.) approving the land exchange constituted an abuse of power and amounted to policy-level corruption. The petitioners maintained that the amendment was inconsistent with the objectives of land reform, environmental protection, the protection of public property, the rights of landless people, the principles of federalism, and the constitutional goal of establishing a socialism-oriented State. Accordingly, they requested the Supreme Court to declare the disputed legal provisions unconstitutional, quash the Cabinet's decision through a writ of certiorari, prohibit the sale or exchange of the exempted land, recover land held beyond the legal ceiling in the name of the Government of Nepal, and grant any other appropriate constitutional remedies, including interim orders.\n\n\n**2. Summary of the Written Statement of the Defendants** \n\n**A. Written replies of the Office of the President**\n\nThe Office of the President stated that it was not the authority responsible for making the challenged decisions. Under Article 66(2) of the Constitution, the President performs such functions only on the recommendation and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, since the Office of the President had no independent role in the matters challenged in the petitions, the writ against it should be dismissed.\n\n**B. Written replies of the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs**\n\nThese respondents argued that the Constitution authorizes the State to enact laws relating to land management, housing, and urban development. The amendments to the Land Concerning Act, the Land Rules, and the 2078 Land Ceiling Exemption Order were enacted to regulate land-ceiling exemptions for industries, companies, and housing businesses. They maintained that exempted land cannot be freely sold or transferred. Sale is permitted only when a company is dissolved or goes into liquidation, while exchange or relocation is allowed only with Government approval and subject to legal conditions. They also emphasized that the Government may confiscate exempted land if it is not used for its approved purpose. They denied that the amendments were enacted solely for the benefit of Giribandhu Tea Estate and argued that the Cabinet's decision was lawful. Therefore, they requested the Court to dismiss the petitions.\n\n**C. Written replies of the Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation and the Department of Land Management and Archives**  \nThese respondents submitted that the amendments were introduced to regulate situations where land exceeding the ceiling limit was legally held by industries and institutions. They argued that the Cabinet's decision and the amended Rules were made under the authority granted by the Land Concerning Act. According to them, the Government merely carried out administrative functions in accordance with laws enacted by Parliament, and therefore no constitutional violation had occurred. They requested dismissal of the writ petitions.\n\n**D. Written replies of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development** \n\nThe Ministry argued that Giribandhu Tea Estate had lawfully obtained a land-ceiling exemption for operating a tea plantation. It further submitted that making or amending laws is a matter within the exclusive legislative authority of Parliament. Since the challenged provisions were enacted through the constitutional legislative process, they were valid and constitutional. Accordingly, the Ministry requested the Court to dismiss the petitions.\n\n**E. Written replies of the Government of Province No. 1 (now Koshi Province)**\n\nThe Provincial Government explained that it had requested the Federal Government to reconsider the Cabinet's decision regarding the proposed land exchange. However, it argued that none of its own actions had violated the petitioners' constitutional or legal rights. Therefore, there was no valid cause of action against the Province, and the writ petition should be dismissed.\n\n**F. Written replies of the Governments of Bagmati, Gandaki, Lumbini, Karnali, and Sudurpashchim Provinces** \n\nThese Provincial Governments stated that they had no involvement in making the Land Concerning Act, the Land Rules, the Land Ceiling Exemption Order, or the Cabinet decision challenged in the petitions. Since all these actions were taken by the Federal Government, they argued that no legal claim could be made against them. They therefore requested the Court to dismiss the petitions against their offices.\n\n**G. Written replies of the Federal Parliament (Speaker, National Assembly Chairperson, and Federal Parliament Secretariat)**\n\nThe respondents argued that the challenged amendments were valid laws enacted by Parliament through the constitutional legislative process. They maintained that deciding land policy and amending legislation fall within Parliament's legislative authority. They further argued that the petitioners had failed to establish any direct inconsistency between the challenged provisions and the Constitution. Therefore, they requested dismissal of the writ petitions.\n\n**H. Written replies of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA)\n**\nThe CIAA submitted that the petitions did not challenge any decision or action taken by the Commission. It explained that it investigates corruption only in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws after receiving complaints. Since the petitions mainly challenged legislative amendments rather than any action of the Commission, the writ against the CIAA was not maintainable and should be dismissed.\n\n**I. Written replies of the District Administration Office, Jhapa** \n\nThe District Administration Office argued that it had no role in approving or implementing the exchange or relocation of Giribandhu Tea Estate's land. As no action of the Office had violated the petitioners' rights, the writ petition against it should be dismissed.\n\n**J. Written replies of the Land Reform and Land Revenue Office, Bhadrapur, Jhapa** \n\nThe Office submitted that Giribandhu Tea Estate had lawfully received land-ceiling exemption under the amended Land Concerning  Act. It explained that the Cabinet approved the proposed land exchange only after the legal procedures prescribed by the Act and Rules had been followed. Since the petitioners' legal rights had not been infringed, the writ petitions deserved dismissal.\n\n**K. Written replies of the District Monitoring and Inspection Committee, Jhapa**\n\n The Committee stated that it had no authority or involvement in the decision concerning the exchange or relocation of Giribandhu Tea Estate's land. Therefore, the petition against the Committee was without legal basis and should be dismissed.\n\n**L. Written replies of Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.**\n\nGiribandhu Tea Estate argued that it is a private company with no Government ownership. It stated that it legally purchased the land after the Land Concerning Act came into force and received a land-ceiling exemption in accordance with the law. The company maintained that the amended law does not permit unrestricted sale of exempted land but only allows relocation of the tea estate by exchanging land with Government approval and under prescribed legal conditions. It denied that the amendments were enacted specifically for its benefit or that they were intended to facilitate the commercialization of exempted land. Instead, it argued that the amendments were introduced to protect and sustain industries facing practical difficulties. Accordingly, it requested the Court to dismiss all the writ petitions.\n\n**In overall** \n\nThe Government of Nepal, Parliament, the concerned ministries, provincial governments, and Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. defended the constitutionality of the challenged legal provisions and the validity of the Cabinet's decision. They argued that the Eighth Amendment to the Land Concerning Act had been duly enacted by Parliament through a legitimate legislative process and was therefore constitutional. According to the respondents, the Constitution authorizes the State to enact laws relating to land management, housing, and development, and the amendment merely provides a legal mechanism for the exchange or relocation of land that has been granted a land ceiling exemption in special circumstances and subject to prescribed legal procedures. Giribandhu Tea Estate further contended that the disputed land is the private property of the company, that the Government had only granted an exemption from the land ceiling without acquiring ownership of the land, and that the amendment was of general application rather than a measure enacted solely for the benefit of Giribandhu. Most provincial governments stated that they had no direct involvement in the dispute. However, the Koshi Provincial Government informed the Court that land policy falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal and Provincial Governments and expressed concern that adequate consultation had not taken place before the Cabinet made its decision. On these grounds, the respondents requested the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the challenged provisions, declare that the Cabinet had acted within the scope of its legal authority, and dismiss all the writ petitions.\n\n\n**3 Summary of Supreme Court Decisions** \n\nThe Constitutional Bench held that laws enacted by Parliament are presumed to be constitutional and may only be declared invalid where a clear violation of the Constitution is established. Applying this principle, the Court found that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that the challenged provisions of the Land Concerning Act, the Land Rules, and the related legal framework were unconstitutional, and therefore upheld the validity of those provisions. However, the Court concluded that the Council of Ministers' decision of 13 April 2021 approving the exchange of 343 bighas, 19 katthas, and 12 dhurs of Giribandhu Tea Estate's land was premature, inadequately justified, and inconsistent with the objectives of the Land Concerning Act. The Court emphasized that land exempted from the statutory ceiling must continue to be used only for the purpose for which the exemption was originally granted and cannot be commercialized under the guise of an \"exchange\" or \"relocation.\" It further held that the Government had failed to properly assess whether the replacement land was suitable for tea cultivation, whether both parcels of land were of equivalent value, the potential environmental impacts, the protection of workers' employment, the location and size of the replacement land, and whether the exchange was genuinely necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the Cabinet's decision by issuing a writ of certiorari, directed that any future exchange or relocation of ceiling-exempted land must satisfy seven mandatory conditions, ordered the Government to identify and recover any exempted land that is unused or used for purposes other than those for which the exemption was granted, directed that the previously transferred 51 bighas be included in calculating the statutory land ceiling, ordered that any land found to exceed the legal ceiling be acquired in the name of the Government of Nepal, and instructed the Federal and Provincial Governments to coordinate effectively in formulating land-related laws and policies on matters falling within their concurrent jurisdiction.","key_allegations":["Illegal amendment of land concerning act to benefit a specific private company by introducing provisions that allowed industries holding land above the legal ceiling to exchange or sell such land, allegedly tailoring the law to benefit Giribandhu Tea Estate.","Council of Ministers' decision of 13 April 2021 (2078/01/13 B.S.) approving the land exchange constituted an abuse of power and amounted to policy-level corruption. Abuse of Cabinet authority by approving the exchange of approximately 343 bighas of high-value land in Birtamod, Jhapa, despite the land being held under a land-ceiling exemption solely for tea cultivation. The approval was alleged to be contrary to Section 12(c) of the Land Concerning Act.","Illegal attempts to bypass binding Supreme Court decisions via ordinances","Illegal attempt to swap legally protected agricultural land (tea production) for commercial real estate development."],"timeline":[{"date":"1950-01-01","title":"Giribandhu Tea Estate Established (1950s-1960s)","date_bs":"2006-09-18","description":"Giribandhu Tea Estate was founded by Giri Brothers"},{"date":"1964-11-16","title":"Land Concerning Act Passed","date_bs":"2021-08-01","description":"King Mahendra Passed the Land Act. It was subsequently amended first in 1966/3/23 (२०२२।१२।१० B.S.) and then again in 1968/10/25 (२०२५।७।९ B.S).Section 7 fixes the maximum land-ceiling a landowner may hold; Section 10 bars acquiring land beyond that ceiling; Section 12(e) allows a ceiling exemption for land used for a government-specified agro-industrial purpose, for as long as that use continues; Section 15 provides that rights over land beyond the ceiling are automatically extinguished unless exempted under Section 12."},{"date":"1972-12-25","title":"Land Ceiling Exemption Granted to Giribandhu Estate","date_bs":"2029-09-11","description":"A Gazette notice is published recording a Council of Ministers decision exempting up to 500 bighas of land registered in the name of Giribandhu Tea Estate in Jhapa—including the disputed 343 bighas-19 katthas-12 dhurs—from the land ceiling, valid 'for as long as it is used for the tea industry.'"},{"date":"1995-05-22","title":"Man Mohan Adhikari (CPN UML)'s Cabinet authorized the land sale of 51 bigha of Giribandhu land","date_bs":"2052-02-08","description":"Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. transferred and registered ownership of 51 bighas of land to its sister company, Naaz Tea Estate, as share investment through a ministerial decision dated 1995-05-22 (2052/2/8 B.S.). Furthermore, a Cabinet decision dated 2003-06-30 (2060/3/16 B.S.) granted approval for the sale of that land. (source: Supreme Court case 078-WC-004)"},{"date":"2008-10-23","title":"Supreme Court Decision on Case No. 064-WF-0014","date_bs":"2065-07-07","description":"Lokbandhu Kandangwa files a writ petition against Giribandhu Tea Estate and others concerning the transferred 51 bighas of land. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court dismisses Kandangwa's writ petition for lack of standing to file a public-interest petition, undue delay, and failure to join the third-party recipients of the land as respondents."},{"date":"2018-02-15","title":"KP Oli becomes prime minister of Nepal","date_bs":"2074-11-03","description":""},{"date":"2019-02-07","title":"Advocate Bhaktaraj Bharati files writ petition against Giribandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others in the Supreme Court of Nepal","date_bs":"2075-10-24","description":"Supreme Court case no. 075-WO-0696"},{"date":"2019-02-18","title":"Supreme Court Issues Interim Order on case no. 075-WO-0696","date_bs":"2075-11-06","description":"Bhaktaraj Bharati files a certiorari writ petition against Giribandhu Tea Estate, Jhapa, and others, challenging that permission. A Joint Bench of the Supreme Court issues an interim order staying implementation of the earlier Council of Ministers decision that permitted exchange/transfer of the ceiling-exempt land (Case No. 075-WO-0696)."},{"date":"2020-02-11","title":"Eighth Amendment to Land Act Passed by Oli Cabinet","date_bs":"2076-10-28","description":"The K.P. Sharma Oli government pushed through the Eighth Amendment to the Land Act 1964 (Land Related Act 2076 BS) in Parliament. The amendment inserted new Section 12 Clause (\"ग\") , stating that companies holding exempt land could \"exchange this land for the purpose of distributing the liability of such industry with the approval of the Government of Nepal\" if dissolved or liquidated, possiibly contradicting the 2021 B.S. Land Act's prohibition on sale or exchange of exempt land."},{"date":"2020-12-21","title":"Issuances of Eighteenth Amendment to the Land Rules, 2021","date_bs":"2077-09-06","description":"The Eighteenth Amendment to the Land Rules, 2021 is issued, inserting Rule 16(a) and Schedule 5(a), prescribing the application procedure for exchange/relocation of ceiling-exempt land."},{"date":"2021-04-26","title":"The Oli's Ministrial Cabinet approves Giribandhu land swap.","date_bs":"2078-01-13","description":"The Council of Ministers decides to approve exchange ('sattapatta') of Giribandhu Tea Estate's 343 bighas-19 katthas-12 dhurs of land in Jhapa for relocation to another site within Province No. 1—the principal decision under challenge in this case. (Note: elsewhere in the record this same decision is also referred to as dated 2078/3/13 and 2078/9/13; the date appears inconsistently in the source document.)"},{"date":"2021-05-17","title":"Oli Cabinet Publishes राजपत्रt titled \"जग्गाको हदबन्दी छुट दिने सम्बन्धी आदेश, २०७८\"","date_bs":"2078-02-03","description":"The Government of Nepal publishes the 'Land Ceiling Exemption Order, 2078' in the Gazette, laying down substantive and procedural provisions allowing companies or other institutions to purchase land beyond the statutory ceiling."},{"date":"2021-08-17","title":"Advocate Om Prakash Aryal files Writ Petition (\"उत्प्रेषण\") at Supreme Court (case no. 078-WC-0004)","date_bs":"2078-05-01","description":"Advocate Om Prakash Aryal and other public interest lawyers filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of both the Eighth Amendment to the Land Act and the specific Cabinet decision approving the Giribandhu land swap. They challenge Section 12(e1), the restrictive clauses of Section 12(c), Rule 16(a) and Schedule 5(a) of the Land Rules, the Land Ceiling Exemption Order 2078, and the Council of Ministers' decision of 2078/1/13."},{"date":"2021-08-18","title":"The parliamentary Agriculture, Cooperatives and Natural Resources Committees direction.","date_bs":"2078-05-02","description":"The parliamentary Agriculture, Cooperatives and Natural Resources Committee has directed the government to halt the land swap of Giribandhu Tea Estate in Jhapa."},{"date":"2021-07-17","title":"Student Organization स्व.वि.यु. files formal complaint in CIAA against Giribandhu and other cases","date_bs":"2078-04-02","description":"The student union formally filed a complaint against then-Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and then-Land Minister Padma Kumari Aryal for amending the law to permit the 300+ bigha land swap."},{"date":"2022-02-06","title":"Government of Koshi Province raises objections.","date_bs":"2078-10-23","description":"The Government of Koshi Province raises objection to the Cabinet decision and formally requests reconsideration."},{"date":"2022-12-26","title":"Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Promises Investigation","date_bs":"2079-09-11","description":"Prime Minster Prachanda publicly stated to media editors that \"Giri Bandhu Tea Estate case will also be investigated\" alongside other high-profile corruption scandals."},{"date":"2024-02-07","title":"Supreme Court Constitutional Bench Verdict on case no. 078-WC-0012, 076-WC-0030 and 078-WC-0004","date_bs":"2080-10-24","description":"The Constitutional Bench hears arguments and on Magh 24 delivers its final order quashing the Cabinet decision, issuing mandamus and directive orders, requiring inclusion of the transferred 51 bighas in ceiling calculations, directing intergovernmental coordination, ordering refund of security deposits, and transmission of the judgment to the Office of the Attorney General for implementation."},{"date":"2024-03-13","title":"KP Oli becomes the Prime Minister of Nepal","date_bs":"2080-11-30","description":""},{"date":"2024-03-13","title":"Supreme Court Issues Interim Order on case no. 075-WO-0696","date_bs":"2080-11-30","description":"Bhaktaraj Bharati files a certiorari writ petition against Giribandhu Tea Estate, Jhapa, and others, challenging that permission. A Joint Bench of the Supreme Court issues an interim order staying implementation of the earlier Council of Ministers decision that permitted exchange/transfer of the ceiling-exempt land (Case No. 075-WO-0696)."},{"date":"2024-07-12","title":"Giribandhu Tea Estate Director Chhatra Bahadur Giri Admits Preparing for Land Swap","date_bs":"2081-03-28","description":"Giribandhu Tea Estate director Chhatra Bahadur Giri held a press conference admitting to \"engaging in land dealings with businessmen like Deepak Malhotra and Bishnu Bahadur Rai\" as part of efforts to parcel out the land. He argued the estate was \"ancestral property\" established before the 2021 Land Act and claimed the family had the right to sell it, especially as the tea business had become loss-making. He challenged the government to either facilitate a resolution or compensate the family and take over the land. Source: Khabarhub (https://english.khabarhub.com/2024/12/360668/)"},{"date":"2024-12-01","title":"Oli Government Issues a Controversial Ordinance","date_bs":"2081-08-16","description":"The caretaker government led by Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli issued an ordinance \"भूमी सम्बन्धी केही नेपाल ऐनलाई संसोधन गर्ने अध्यादेश, २०२१\" that essentially re-introduced the land swap provisions, seemingly to bypass the Supreme Court ruling."},{"date":"2025-01-15","title":"Advocate Om Prakash Aryal files Contempt of Court Petition \"अवहेलना\" in the Supreme Court (Case no. 081-AP-0442)","date_bs":"2081-10-02","description":"Advocate Om Prakash Aryal filed a contempt of court petition at the Supreme Court against Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and Land Minister Balram Adhikari for non-compliance with the February 7, 2024 verdict."},{"date":"2025-02-10","title":"Supreme Court Hearing on the Contempt of Court Petition","date_bs":"2081-10-28","description":"Supreme Court requests the defendants which includes the Nepal Government to defend themselves in writing (\"लिखित जवाफ माग्ने\")"},{"date":"2025-02-16","title":"Comprehensive Land Bill Introduced","date_bs":"2081-11-04","description":"The KP Oli-led CPN UML party introduced a comprehensive land bill in Parliament, but it was quickly \"linked to Giribandhu Estate\" by lawmakers who feared it contained loopholes similar to those that enabled the scandal.  Bill text: https://hr.parliament.gov.np/en/bills/ZJUoPgYB"},{"date":"2025-05-06","title":"KP Oli resigns from the position of Prime Minister of Nepal in the midst of the GenZ protests","date_bs":"2082-01-23","description":""},{"date":"2025-09-09","title":"Sushila Karki becomes the Prime Minister of Nepal","date_bs":"2082-05-24","description":""},{"date":"2025-09-12","title":"Citizen activist Sanjib Bhattarai files formal accusation against KP Oli and business Deepak Kumar Malhotra in CIAA and calls for a high-level probe","date_bs":"2082-05-27","description":""}],"ai_generated_sections":[],"evidence":[{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/document/20251206.c89202b0","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"Sanjib Bhattarai files complaint against KP Oli in Giribandhu Case in CIAA","material_type":"document","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/2082-08-01-sanjeev-ujuri.pdf","role":"RAW"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/legal_corpus/20251213.8352f3b9","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"King Mahendra's Land Ceiling Exemption of 342 bighas for Giribandhu tea estate","material_type":"legal_corpus","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/झापा%20जिल्ला%20अन्तर्गतका%20केही%20चिया%20उद्योगको%20जग्गा%20काममा%20रहे%20सम्म%20हदबन्दी%20छुट%20दिइएको.pdf","role":"RAW"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/legal_corpus/20251213.e2cc66d2","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"Land Reform act, 2021","material_type":"legal_corpus","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/भम-समबनध-ऐन-२०२१.pdf","role":"RAW"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/court_order/20251213.0333babb","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"[DOCX] Supreme Court verdict on case no. 078-WC-0004, 076-WC-0030, and 078-WC-0012.","material_type":"court_order","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/sc-078-WC-0004.docx","role":"RAW"},{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/ef545c48e5900e570a2630e16ac930832812fd0e9fe17f156d21da4d3846451e.md","role":"MARKDOWN"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/legal_corpus/20251213.c6fc4550","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"Parliamentary Land Reform Bill (2082-01-23)","material_type":"legal_corpus","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/land-reform-bill-2082-01-23.pdf","role":"RAW"},{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/a564422bf2b334b4d8586cc5a6cb10df61bcc1dc76b91f5f15943a733d08ae9f.md","role":"MARKDOWN"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/court_order/20251213.f441b8b6","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"Supreme Court Verdict on case no. 075-WO-0696","material_type":"court_order","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/sc-075-WO-0696.docx","role":"RAW"},{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/ec7d84c9a565cb5365cccd314cb8a4900179b58d7e7f0e601749f58d762435a4.md","role":"MARKDOWN"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/legal_corpus/20251213.428d1df0","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"भमूि सम्बन्धी (आठौं संशोधन) ऐन, २०७६","material_type":"legal_corpus","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/land-related-act-2076.pdf","role":"RAW"},{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/case_uploads/37de231757b99dc11eb0b07541f1f7a9931ae7ca891356aad5797fde285ea7d8.md","role":"MARKDOWN"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/document/20251213.fb925867","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"Giribandhu tea estate photo","material_type":"document","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/giribandhu-tea-estate.jpeg","role":"RAW"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/document/20251213.d4e01f76","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"Student Organization स्व.वि.यु. files formal complaint in CIAA against Giribandhu and other cases","material_type":"document","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/2078-11%20-%20CIAA%20Complaint%20-%20swabiyu%20-%20giribandhu.jpg","role":"RAW"}]}},{"material_iri":"https://jawafdehi.org/material/legal_corpus/20251213.d3c4bedb","additional_details":".","material":{"display_name":"President Ram Chandra Poudal signs Land Act Amendment, 2081 and it becomes law.","material_type":"legal_corpus","urls":[{"link":"https://s3.jawafdehi.org/cases/giribandhu/2081-10-02-president-signs-ordinance.jpg","role":"RAW"}]}}],"notes":"","court_cases":["https://jawafdehi.org/courtcase/supreme/075-wo-0696","https://jawafdehi.org/courtcase/supreme/076-wc-0030","https://jawafdehi.org/courtcase/supreme/078-wc-0004","https://jawafdehi.org/courtcase/supreme/078-wc-0012","https://jawafdehi.org/courtcase/supreme/081-ap-0442"],"missing_details":"- The full text of the Supreme Court decision in Case No. 064-WF-0014 is unavailable.\n- Full text of all writ petition \n- Full text of all written Statement . \n- Other admissible evidence relating to land case are unavailable.","bigo":5000000000,"weight":115,"versionInfo":{"action":"published","datetime":"2026-08-03T12:22:59.540955+00:00"},"created_at":"2025-12-02T09:44:19.995000+05:45","updated_at":"2026-10-09T19:18:27.049041+05:45"}