NEW DELHI, Sept 25: A Special Court in Bengaluru on Wednesday directed the Lokayukta police in Mysuru to register a criminal case against the Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and others on the alleged illegalities in the allotment of 14 sites worth ₹56 crore to his wife by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
The court directed the Superintendent of Police of the Lokayukta police to invoke provisions on prevention of corruption, prohibition of benami properties and land grabbing under various laws. While exercising its power under Section 153 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), the Special Court also directed the Superintendent of Police to submit the investigation report within three months.
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Wednesday reiterated his readiness to face an investigation into the MUDA site allotment case, stating he was “not afraid” of the probe. Reacting to the special court’s order for a Lokayukta police probe against him, the Chief Minister said, “Already I have said I am ready to face an investigation. I am not afraid of a probe.” He added, “I am ready for a legal fight. I had said this yesterday and I am reiterating it today as well.”
Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, the judge of the Special Court that exclusively deals with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs in the Karnataka, issued the direction on a private complaint filed by Snehamayi Krishna of Mysuru.
The other accused persons named in the complaint are Parvathi B.M., wife of Mr Siddaramaiah; B.M. Mallikarjuna Swamy, brother of Ms Parvathi; and J. Devaraj from whom Mr Swamy had purchased three acres and 16 guntas of land even after MUDA had formed the layout and allotted sites to various beneficiaries on that parcel of land.
The Special Court passed the order as the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday vacated its earlier interim order, in which the Special Court was directed to pause its proceedings on the private complaint till the High Court adjudicated on Mr Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the permission granted by the Governor under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for conducting investigation against him. While upholding the permission granted by the Governor, the High Court also found that the facts of the allegations “undoubtedly require an investigation.”
The Special Court has directed the Lokayukta police to invoke the following provisions of the law in the first information report (FIR) to be registered against the accused persons: Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 166 (public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person) 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 426 (mischief), 465 (forgery), 340 (wrongful confinement), 351 (assault) and other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The police were also directed to invoke Sections 9 (offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation) and 13 (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. Further hearing on the complaint has been adjourned till December 24 pending the investigation report.
Following the court’s order, several BJP leaders intensified their demands for Siddaramaiah’s resignation on the social media platform X. The party’s IT cell head, Amit Malviya, stated that authorising the Lokayukta to investigate him leaves “absolutely no room for him to continue as the Chief Minister.” “The ‘conflict of interest’ is obvious. As CM, he has all the authority to prejudice the inquiry. He must resign,” Malviya stated.
Calling Siddaramaiah a “corrupt CM,” BJP Karnataka suggested that he face the probe not as the Chief Minister, but as an ordinary citizen. “Under this controversial scheme, MUDA allocated 50 per cent of the developed land to landowners in lieu of undeveloped land acquired for residential layouts. It is alleged that Parvathi did not have legal title over the 3.16 acres of land located at survey number 464 in Kasare village, Kasaba hobli of Mysuru taluk.
In the MUDA site allotment case, it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife in a prime area of Mysuru which has a higher property value than the location of her land that was “acquired” by MUDA. The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 scheme in exchange for 3.16 acres of her land, where it developed a residential layout.
(Manas Dasgupta)
