E-Paper
ED moves Karnataka HC against closure of MUDA case involving CM Siddaramaiah
The ED challenged a trial court’s decision to accept the ‘B’ final report filed by the Lokayukta Police in the MUDA land allotment case involving Siddaramaiah
Prefer HTon Google
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the closure of the corruption case against Karnataka chief minister (CM) Siddaramaiah, his wife BM Parvathi and two others in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land allotment case.
In its petition filed on Monday, the ED has challenged a trial court’s decision to accept the ‘B’ final report filed by the Lokayukta Police in the MUDA land allotment case involving Siddaramaiah and his family.
It has opposed the January 28 order of a special court in Bengaluru, which accepted the closure report and terminated proceedings against Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, and landowner J Devaraj.
In its plea, the central agency claimed that the special court’s order is “internally inconsistent and legally untenable.” It has said that the court could not have accepted the ‘B’ report clearing the four accused persons including the CM and his wife, while simultaneously allowing further investigation against MUDA officials over the same allegedly illegal allotment of 1,045 sites.
According to the ED, Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, Swamy, and Devaraj are the “principal beneficiaries” of the alleged “proceeds of crime,” with one of them receiving 14 high-value sites worth around ₹56 crore.
If the allotments were illegal, the beneficiaries cannot be absolved while only the officials who made the allotments remain under investigation, ED has said in its plea.
Also Read:HC issues notice to Siddaramaiah over petition challenging MUDA case closure
The central agency further said that the roles of “givers” and “takers” are inseparable, particularly when the beneficiaries are alleged to have exercised influence over the officials.
It has further said that the “offence of conspiracy necessarily involves both sides of the transaction and cannot be split” in the manner the special court has done.
As per the petition, the Lokayukta Police also ignored material evidence that the ED had shared under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). ED has said such evidence included satellite imagery indicating development activity on the land as early as 2003, prior to its projected classification as agricultural land, and WhatsApp communications allegedly showing undue influence over MUDA officials.
It has also relied on statements attributed to former MUDA Commissioner GT Dinesh Kumar, who allegedly admitted to have acted beyond the MUDA Board’s agenda in favour of the CM’s wife.
According to ED, it shared with the Lokayukta police, five categories of evidence between November 30, 2024 and January 24, 2025. Despite this, the latter filed a ‘B’ report saying it had not found enough material to establish alleged irregularities in the case, which the trial court accepted.
The special court’s acceptance of such B report, ED has said in its petition, reflects “non-application of mind” and violates settled principles of law.
Accordingly, ED has sought quashing of both the special court’s January order and the Lokayukta’s ‘B’ report. It has also urged the high court to direct continuation of the investigation against all accused, including the CM and his family.
Also Read: ED summon to Siddaramaiah’s wife, state minister in Muda case
The case pertains to allegations that MUDA illegally allotted 14 compensatory sites to Parvathi after the denotification and conversion of over three acres of land in Kesare village. The complaint claims that the compensation value escalated from a few lakhs in 1997 to approximately ₹56 crore in 2021.
On March 25 this year, a single bench of the Karnataka high court had issued notice on a separate petition filed by RTI activist and the original complainant in the alleged MUDA scam case, Snehamayi Krishna. In his petition, Krishna too has challenged the January 28 order accepting the Lokayukta’s closure report.
Krishna argued that the special court treated the matter as a routine dispute and failed to independently assess serious allegations of abuse of office. He has also sought transfer of the probe to an independent agency and court-monitored investigation.
ED’s petition is yet to be taken up for hearing by the high court.
