MUDA case has its origins more than decades ago

The Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case over which the Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot accorded sanction for investigation against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has its origins more than three decades ago.

The case pertains to alleged allotment of compensatory sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been “acquired” by the MUDA.

The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where it developed a residential layout.

Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 per cent of developed land to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts.

However, it is alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acres of land at survey number 464 of Kasare village in Kasaba hobli of Mysuru taluk.

The issue finds its origins in September 1992, when preliminary notification was issued to acquire land measuring 3.16 acres belonging to one Ninga bin Javara to form the Devanur Layout third phase, and subsequent final notification in February 1998.

While the said land was later denotified in May 1998, it was still used to form Devanur Layout and sites were allotted in 2001.

Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law Mallikarjunaswamy in August 2004 purchased this 3.16 acres of “agricultural” land from one of the sons of the original holder, and got it converted for non-agricultural purposes in July 2005.

In October 2010, Mallikarjunaswamy executed the gift deed of the land to his sister Parvathi, Siddaramaiah’s wife.

Questions are being raised as to how Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law purchased land in 2004 and gifted it to Parvathi, when the layout was formed and sites were allotted to various people in 2001 itself. Also, how the land that was denotified became ‘agricultural’ land for it to be converted as non-agricultural in 2005.

It is claimed that Parvathi in June 2014 realised that the MUDA had illegally acquired her 3.16 acres land without consent to develop Devanur Layout and had formed sites and sought compensation in lieu of her land. Following this, MUDA in December 2017, admitting its mistake in using the denotified land to form a layout, decided to award alternative sites to Parvathi .

The MUDA in November 2020 decided to award alternative sites to land losers including Parvathi on a 50:50 basis, and in January 2022 she was allotted 14 plots in (upmarket) Vijayanagar 3rd phase.

In October 2023, as questions were raised about the 50:50 scheme, the government scrapped it.

As allegations regarding the CM’s wife getting benefitted from the MUDA site allotment ‘scam’ surfaced, the government set up a one-man inquiry commission under former High Court Judge Justice P N Desai to probe illegalities, just a day ahead of the monsoon session of the legislature beginning earlier this year in July.

Amid the controversy, Siddaramaiah had, while alleging that his land was usurped by MUDA, said: “let it (MUDA) pay my family compensation of Rs 62 crore and take back 14 alternate sites.” The MUDA ‘scam’ had created uproar during the session as discussion on the subject was not allowed.

Based on a petition filed by complainant T J Abraham, the Governor had issued a “show-cause notice” on July 26 directing the Chief Minister to submit his reply to the allegations against him within seven days as to why permission for prosecution should not be granted against him.

The Karnataka government had on August one “strongly advised” the Governor to withdraw his “show-cause notice” to the Chief Minister and alleged “gross misuse of the Constitutional Office” of the Governor. Subsequently on August 3, the CM responded to the Governor’s notice, denying allegations.

Opposition BJP and JD(S) had held a week-long ‘padayatre’ (foot march) earlier this month from Bengaluru to Mysuru demanding Siddaramaiah’s resignation in connection with the scam.

The Governor on August 16 accorded sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in the petitions submitted to him by complainants Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.

On August 19, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor’s order.

After completing the hearings on the petition in six sittings from August 19, the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna on Tuesday dismissed his petition challenging Governor’s approval for investigation against him in the case.