KATHMANDU, June 5: Former Secretary of the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, Trilochan Upreti, said that the proposal to grant Patanjali Yogpeeth and Ayurved Company Nepal permission to acquire land beyond the legal ceiling was driven by political directives and informal decisions made at the highest level.
In a statement given before the concerned authorities, Upreti claimed that the issue was brought before the Bill Committee of the Cabinet on February 1, 2010, where he was serving as the committee's secretary. The proposal, which sought to allow Patanjali to acquire land under Clause 12 of the Land Act 2021 BS, came with the condition that the land would be used solely for the stated purpose and could not be resold. He added that the then Prime Minister, Land Reform Minister and Chief Secretary had verbally instructed him to expedite the process through the Bill Committee.
Upreti mentioned that there was already a political commitment to approve the proposal and it was communicated that both the Prime Minister and Land Reform Minister had personally assured Swami Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna of a positive outcome. As the Ministry of Land Reform was unable to grant the exemption directly, the matter was forwarded to the Cabinet for decision, eventually landing in the Bill Committee for formal recommendation.
Cabinets of Province 2 and 3 expanded
Upreti stated he had no prior knowledge that the company had already purchased more than 550 ropanis of land in Kavre before the decision was made. He recalled that the proposal highlighted benefits such as job creation, herbal medicine production, research and increased exports, framing the investment as beneficial for national development.
During internal discussions, Upreti and other secretaries had argued that such land ceiling exemptions were not applicable to companies unless clearly defined under existing industrial provisions. However, ministers present in the committee advised not to dwell on technicalities and assured that a legal amendment would follow. The recommendation was eventually made to allow the exemption, with safeguards to prevent misuse of the land beyond the stated purpose.
Upreti further clarified that, legally, land ceiling exemptions without formal law amendments were not permissible, but the decision moved forward due to majority support and ministerial pressure within the committee. Upreti also said he was unaware of a previously suspended policy from 2062 BS that dealt with allowing industries to own land beyond the ceiling and that this was not discussed during the committee meeting.
Moreover, he stated that no detailed discussion took place within the committee about the specific purpose, district, or use for which the excess land was being acquired, as those matters fell under the jurisdiction of relevant ministries and departments, and not within the committee's purview.
