New Delhi: Creating false and fabricated documents, misusing the office of deputy chief minister to hatch a conspiracy with public servants, and using political clout — these were some of the allegations made by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police wing in its FIR against Siddaramaiah and his family in what has come to be known as the MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) irregularities case.
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah stands accused of using his position and clout to expedite the transfer of Rs 56 crore worth of government land comprising 14 sites to his wife, B.N. Parvathi, for a nominal sum of Rs 14,000 when he was the deputy CM of the state from 1996 to 99 and 2004 to 2005.
The Enforcement Directorate Monday took cognisance of the Karnataka Lokayukta FIR and initiated a money laundering case against Siddaramaiah and his wife, B.N. Parvathi, under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
Hours later, Parvathi offered to return the 14 sites transferred to her by MUDA. “I wish to surrender and return the compensatory plots by cancelling the deeds of 14 plots executed in my favour by the Mysore Urban Development Authority,” read her letter, sent to MUDA Monday. “I am also handing over the possession of the plots back to the Mysore Urban Development Authority. Kindly take necessary steps in this regard as soon as possible.”
Reacting to the Enforcement Directorate filing a case against him, Siddaramaiah Monday questioned the initiation of proceedings under the PMLA. “I don’t know on which grounds it is a money laundering case. Probably, you feel the same…. It does not attract a money laundering case because compensatory sites were given. So, how is it a money laundering case?” Siddaramaiah asked reporters in Bengaluru.
The Karnataka Lokayukta Police in Mysuru district registered the FIR Friday after a special court in Bengaluru ordered it to do so Wednesday. ThePrint has seen a copy of the FIR, which has been filed under sections 120-B (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), 426(mischief), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for cheating), 340 (wrongful confinement), 351 (assault) of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sections 3, 53 and 54 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, have also been included in the FIR.
Siddaramaiah has been listed as accused number one, followed by his wife Parvathi, brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, and Devaraju, who allegedly transferred the land to Swamy before gifting it to Parvathi.
The Bengaluru special court ordered the FIR in the case a day after the Karnataka High Court upheld the sanction for the CM’s prosecution by Karnataka Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot on 16 August. Justice M. Nagaprasanna junked Siddaramaiah’s plea, challenging the Governor’s sanction for an investigation against him under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988.
Also Read: What is ‘electoral bonds extortion’ complaint that led to FIR against Sitharaman, BJP office-bearers
Change of ownership and ‘gift’ to Siddaramaiah’s wife
It all started when three social activists, Snehamayi Krishna, Abraham T.J., and Pradeep Kumar S.P., approached the Karnataka Governor, seeking his sanction to initiate criminal proceedings against the Chief Minister. It is based on Krishna’s private complaint — a copy of which ThePrint has seen — that the Bengaluru special court designated to adjudicate cases against MPs or MLAs ordered the probe into Siddaramaiah.
In a 59-point long list of complaints detailing allegations against Siddaramaiah, Krishna alleged that the act of misappropriation of government land began gathering pace when Siddaramaiah was the deputy CM between 1996 and 1999 and 2002 and 2004. His wife, Parvathi, allegedly initiated an application for the transfer of compensation of land in exchange for land acquired by the MUDA from her in 2014 when Siddaramaiah was the CM.
In a detailed complaint, Krishna alleged that Devaraju — one of the accused named in the Lokayukta FIR and the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) — claimed ownership of 3.16 acres. He and one of his brothers relinquished the land to another brother, Mylaraiah, after MUDA notified their land, which was in their father’s name, for acquisition as part of the development plan for Devanuru, according to MUDA’s third-phase layout plan.
At the time, Devaraju allegedly wrote a letter to the then MUDA commissioner to de-notify the land from the acquisition process, after which the commissioner communicated with the government about “untenable reasons” for not acquiring the land. Though the land was de-notified from acquisition, it was used for the development of Devanuru, the complainants further alleged.
Later, in August 2004, Devaraju transferred the land to Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law Mallikrajuna Swamy. The periods when the land was denotified from acquisition proceedings and sold to Swamy coincide with the two tenures of Siddaramiah as deputy CM, according to the complainant.
Shortly after the land transfer, its land use was changed from agriculture to non-agricultural, with the help of a former deputy commissioner and tahsildar, based on concocted documents, the complainants said further.
Later, in 2009, the state government brought a specific law to expedite land acquisition in Karnataka. It entitles landowners whose land the state has acquired for urban development projects to get up to 50 percent of their land in redevloped layout as compensation while the auhtority retains the remaining 50 percent.
Just the following year, the complainant alleged, Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law transferred the 3.16-acre land in his sister’s name in the form of a gift.
When Siddaramaiah returned to power as Karnataka’s chief minister in 2013, the process for seeking compensation for land acquired by MUDA picked up pace. From 2014 onwards, Parvathi started to make representations to MUDA, requesting the allotment of compensatory sites for the alleged use of the now non-agricultural 3.16-acre land for the development of Devanuru, according to the complainants. In July 2021, the then MUDA commissioner sought instructions from the state government on the two resolutions passed by MUDA in 2017 on awarding compensatory sites to Parvathy, the complainants added.
However, even before the state government responded with an instruction to the former MUDA commissioner, Parvathi executed a relinquishment deed in November 2021 to stake a claim on compensatory sites from MUDA. The following month, the then MUDA commissioner ordered the allotment of compensatory sites of 38,284 square feet to Parvathi in alleged violation of laws.
The complainants alleged that Siddaramaiah got 14 sites registered in his wife’s name on 12 January 2022. Allegedly, by exerting his political influence over the officials and by sheer abuse of power at the sub-registrar level, Siddaramaiah was successful in getting 14 sites registered in the name of his wife, they said. Later, on the same day, sale deeds for the 14 sites in favour of Parvathi were allegedly executed by illegal methods.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)