Intermediaries Dominate Land Pass and Survey Services Nationwide; Services Not Available Without Licensed Facilitators

The government has been arresting individuals acting as intermediaries and collecting unnecessary fees in Land Revenue Offices recently. Licensed facilitators working as record-keepers in these offices have been playing the role of middlemen, officially licensed by government bodies. The Dolma system has complicated public access to land services, making assistance from these facilitators essential.

March 10, Kathmandu – In recent times, authorities have been apprehending people working as intermediaries in Land Revenue Offices and unlawfully charging service users extra fees. Notably, operators of Land Service Centers—who also perform record-keeping tasks in these offices—have been placed under police custody. Investigations reveal that these record-keepers have effectively functioned as middlemen in Land Revenue and other government offices. Despite holding official licenses, they have been accused of causing unnecessary difficulties for the public, charging additional fees, and incurring expenses purportedly payable to employees, prompting intensified police action.

The practice of using facilitators who prevent direct contact between employees and clients while collecting extra charges is not new. Following the Janandolan-II (People’s Movement II), the two-thirds majority government intensified crackdowns on such middlemen as part of efforts to enhance public service delivery. The Patan unit of the Nepal Record-Keeping Legal Professionals Association has expressed opposition to this crackdown. However, due to these very intermediaries, direct service from Land Revenue Offices is nearly impossible. Individuals must visit facilitators’ offices around Land Revenue Offices to conduct property purchase, sale, or survey-related work. Without a licensed facilitator, employees reportedly refuse service and turn clients away.

The Dolma system is currently used for activities related to Land Revenue Offices. This system restricts direct public access and complicates procedures, thereby necessitating assistance from facilitators who have access to the system. Land Revenue work commences only through these licensed intermediaries. Although this online system is accessible at Land Revenue Offices nationwide, direct use by the public is highly improbable since employees themselves typically reject such attempts.

The Land Revenue Office is the sole authority issuing licenses to record keepers, and work can proceed only after authorization. Kumar Ingnam, the Minister for Land Affairs in the post-Janandolan government, publicly accused employees of graft and irregularities within Land Revenue Departments. He stated, “If local ward offices process applications with proper receipts, and work is done only by employees, the state will experience change.”

“Currently, Land Revenue officials and employees do not directly demand money. I myself have paid 5,000 NPR for land services at the Land Service Center after paying appropriate taxes,” the minister added. Although work was disrupted by arson during Janandolan II, Minister Ingnam began action after reports surfaced that facilitators at the Chabahil Land Revenue Office were collecting approximately 2.4 million NPR monthly.

A staff member at Kathmandu’s Manmaiju Land Revenue Office confirmed that service users find it difficult to carry out processes independently. “Even when service users prefer to work without facilitators, it is impossible—they have become essential,” he explained. Similar conditions exist at the Dillibazar Land Revenue Office, where all clients eventually depend on facilitators.

Licenses for facilitators are issued exclusively by the Land Revenue Office, and according to the Land Service Center Directives of 2018, the Department of Land Management and Records grants these permits. The fee is 3,000 NPR for individuals and 5,000 NPR for institutions, with service operators required to deposit a security of 50,000 NPR for individuals and 200,000 NPR for institutions. These licenses must be renewed annually, involving corresponding fees.

This licensing system also encompasses the access fees of the land information system, effectively demonstrating the state’s role in enabling middlemen through imposed charges on property transactions. The profession formerly known as record-keeping is now termed Land Service Centers. Despite partial digitization of Land Revenue Offices, interactions between clients and service providers continue to occur mainly via facilitators. Former Secretary Gopinath Mainali explained that the government’s role in land transactions primarily remains that of a witness. “Land Revenue certifies, but eventual property subdivision is conducted by surveyors,” he said.

Mainali noted that the presence of surveyors within Land Revenue further exacerbates systemic irregularities. Thus, a decision was made in 2018 to implement a social online system without significant investment. The Public Access Module directly displays land and ward office details, and surveyors must perform subdivision work in a bundled manner, he added. Although service providers known as Lekhapadhi obtained an interim Supreme Court order against the cabinet’s decision, the government ultimately prevailed. However, the Land Revenue administration still resists compliance. Mainali mentioned that he personally oversaw issues connected to former Minister Kumar Ingnam.

Mainali highlighted close connections or a nexus between employees and intermediaries in high-volume land transaction areas, a nexus that former prime ministers also failed to dismantle. He attributed the situation to a lack of commitment from the prime minister to enforce reforms. “To implement an effective system, it was necessary to replace Land Revenue staff. I requested 200 new branch officers, 50 deputy secretaries, and two joint secretaries,” he said. “However, the prime minister declined, and my proposal was left unaddressed.” According to Mainali, only a few competent employees remain in Land Revenue, land administration, and Guthi (trust) sectors. “Currently, even raising demands for reform results in difficulties,” he stated. “Reforms must begin, or else the entrenched network will capture control,” he warned. He emphasized that meaningful improvements have not occurred since 1951 and recommended that surveyors adopt automated systems.

Mainali cautioned that introducing intermediaries as facilitators harms both the state and service users. Therefore, he believes that facilitators are unnecessary for the Land Revenue office if the state intends to increase revenue flow and provide convenient, accessible services to the public.