E-Paper
Fresh complaint filed against Siddaramaiah in land de-notification case
NR Ramesh also addressed a letter to governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot, urging an investigation against Siddaramaiah and others under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act
Karnataka BJP leader NR Ramesh has filed a fresh complaint with the state Lokayukta, alleging chief minister Siddaramaiah’s involvement in an illegal land de-notification case linked to the Mysore Urban Development Authority (Muda). The complaint, submitted to Lokayukta ADGP and IGP Subramanyeswara Rao, also named former Muda chairman C Basave Gowda and sought an inquiry into the “unlawful de-notification of prime land”.
Ramesh also addressed a letter to governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot, urging an investigation against Siddaramaiah and others under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. “CM Siddaramaiah had allegedly got the land on lease and later illegally registered it in his name on November 26, 1997. At that time, Siddaramaiah was the Deputy Chief Minister, Finance Minister, and District In-charge Minister of Mysuru,” the BJP leader alleged.
According to the complaint filed on Thursday, Muda had acquired land in Hinkal village, Mysuru, in 1985, compensating the original owner. However, the land was later de-notified in 1997, allegedly without due approval from the state government. “Just 20 days before Siddaramaiah’s purchase, his close associate and MUDA Chairman C. Basave Gowda had illegally de-notified Survey No. 70/4A on October 23, 1997, violating all legal norms,” Ramesh stated.
“Earlier, on December 21, 1995, the MUDA Commissioner had ruled that there was no legal provision to de-notify the land, yet Basave Gowda went ahead with the illegal de-notification,” he further said.
Ramesh also said that plots developed by Muda, including one legally allotted to a person named Sundar Raj, were affected by this illegal process. “Within days of purchasing the site, Siddaramaiah demolished the legally constructed house of Sundar Raj without any due process,” he alleged.
Furthermore, Ramesh contended that the land was later sold by Siddaramaiah in 2003 for a significantly higher amount. “After acquiring the illegally de-notified plot no. 3161, Siddaramaiah sold it on September 29, 2003, for ₹1 crore,” he claimed.
The CM’s office has not issued a response, stating that it was unaware of any such complaints.
Meanwhile, the Karnataka HC on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions filed by chief minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, and minister Byrathi Suresh, seeking to quash Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons in the Muda case. The ED had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) following an FIR by the Lokayukta police.
Senior advocate Sandesh J Chouta, appearing for Parvathi, argued that she had already surrendered the allegedly illegal sites and was neither in possession of them nor benefiting from any proceeds of crime. “Just the existence of dirty money is not enough for PMLA. The entire argument of mine would be that to attract provisions of PMLA, unless there is activity in furtherance of proceeds of crime, PMLA will not be attracted,” he contended.
Chouta further stated, “On October 1, 2024, the property was returned to MUDA. Thus, the so-called proceeds of crime were not with the petitioner, so the question of her enjoying the proceeds of crime does not arise.” He argued that the ED acted in haste by registering the ECIR soon after the Lokayukta FIR, questioning its jurisdiction in the matter.
Meanwhile, senior advocate CV Nagesh, representing Minister Suresh, contended that the alleged illegal allotments predate his tenure.
“I assumed office as a minister in June 2023. The offence is related to illegal or unauthorized allotment of sites. Proceeds of crime relate to illegal allotments, so in what way am I connected to it? Before June 2023, I was a stranger to MUDA,” he argued.
Countering the arguments, Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, appearing for the ED, maintained that the investigation extends beyond the 14 identified sites. “The complaint is that MUDA has been granting sites by violating rules. We are not concerned with just the accused in the predicate offence; we are tracing the proceeds of crime,” Kamath said.
Kamath asserted that the ED had the authority to issue summons and question property allotments. “During the course of our investigation, one of the persons has stated that he was put under pressure from the office of the accused to make the allotment. We have found dozens of people purchasing property in the names of their relatives.”
He dismissed claims that the return of the sites to Muda nullified the case, arguing, “Allotment of sites is a criminal activity. If the petitioner’s argument is accepted, it would turn the entire PMLA Act on its head.”
The court, while reserving its order, noted, “One factor is that the sites did not go to the accused by way of sale or purchase but by way of allotment, in lieu of usage of lands of the accused. So, it is not that the proceeds of crime have emerged because of that.”
