Sudan Gurung Land Deal: Media Trial Debate Over Bhedetar Purchase

Sudan Gurung should face a fair and independent investigation—there is no disagreement on that. This has been consistently emphasized. However, a recent report A report published by Onlinekhabar regarding his land purchase has raised concerns about how the issue is being framed.

The media is free to report news. But knowingly presenting an issue in a way that fuels criticism without full context does not align with the core principles of responsible journalism.

The report in question highlighted a headline claiming that Sudan Gurung purchased nearly 20 ropani of land in Bhedetar for just NPR 700,000. According to the report, on Chaitra 11, a land parcel measuring 19 ropani 15 aana, located in Sangurigadhi Rural Municipality–6 (former Karkichhap–5), Dhankuta, was registered under Gurung’s name with a declared value of NPR 700,000, raising questions about how such land could be obtained so cheaply.

Why the 7 Lakh Land Deal Appears Controversial

At first glance, the figure appears surprising. However, the underlying reality of land transactions in Nepal is widely understood—not only by journalists, but also by buyers, sellers, and those involved in the real estate sector.

Understanding Nepal’s “Thaili Amount” System

If someone is unfamiliar with this system, it may indeed seem shocking. But in practice, land transactions in Nepal often involve a declared amount that is significantly lower than the actual market value, commonly referred to as the “thaili amount.”

When land is purchased through bank or cooperative financing, the valuation typically reflects the official assessed amount. However, in cases where transactions are made in cash, it is common—except in rare instances—for parties to declare only a fraction of the actual value during registration.

For example, land worth NPR 5 million may be registered with a declared value of only NPR 300,000 to 800,000. This is not an isolated case but a widespread practice across the country.

In fact, if a buyer insists on declaring the full actual value to avoid tax underreporting, sellers may either refuse the transaction or require the buyer to bear additional tax liabilities.

The reason behind this lies in the tax structure. In Nepal, land transactions involve capital gains tax paid by the seller (around 5%) and registration fees paid by the buyer (typically around 3% for women and 4% for men, varying slightly by location).

To illustrate, if a property with an actual value of NPR 5 million is registered at NPR 500,000 and later sold for NPR 6 million with the full amount declared, the seller would appear to have made a profit of NPR 5.5 million on paper. This results in a significantly higher tax liability, even though the real profit may be far lower.

Because of this, many transactions are intentionally registered at lower declared values, even when the actual price is much higher. This practice, while debated in terms of legality and ethics, is conducted through official land revenue offices, where such discrepancies are widely recognized.

Officials are aware that the land being transacted may be worth significantly more than the declared amount, yet registration proceeds based on the minimum government valuation rate.

This reflects what many describe as the “practical implementation” of the system.

In this context, the claim that Sudan Gurung acquired nearly 20 ropani of land for NPR 700,000 follows the same logic that applies to a large portion of land transactions in Nepal.

For this reason, focusing solely on the declared amount as a basis for controversy may not fully capture the reality of the situation.

Media Trial Debate and the Need for Context

That said, there are other aspects of the case that may warrant closer scrutiny. Reports indicate that the land was purchased just two days before Gurung assumed ministerial office. Questions regarding the timing of the transaction and the source of funds could be more relevant areas for investigation.

As such, while the case itself is important and deserving of fair examination, presenting it through a limited lens risks turning the coverage into what some may perceive as a media trial.

A balanced approach—one that includes both systemic context and legitimate questions—would better serve the public interest.