In a significant development surrounding the ongoing Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case, a private complaint has been filed against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Thursday. The complaint, which also names his wife Parvathamma and others, was lodged by Snehamayi Krishna in the Special Court for People’s Representatives in Bangalore. The court is set to hear the complaint on August 9, and it will decide whether the case can proceed to trial.
The complaint by Snehamayi Krishna alleges corruption and misconduct by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and others in connection with the MUDA scam, which has become a major controversy in Karnataka politics. The complaint specifically targets handling 3.16 acres of land in Survey No. 464 of Kesare village, Mysore taluk, which was allegedly acquired and used improperly to construct a slum in 2001.
According to the complaint, Parvathamma’s brother initially purchased this land in 2004 and later reportedly donated it in 2010. However, documents reveal that Parvathamma had written letters to MUDA in 2014 and 2021 indicating that the land had already been developed into a layout in 2001, raising questions about the legality of the transactions and the timeline of events.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, addressing the media in Mysore, expressed confidence that the case would not hold up in court, calling the allegations baseless. “I have the power to answer if false cases are filed. False cases do not stand in law,” Siddaramaiah stated, dismissing the complaint as politically motivated.
This isn’t the first legal challenge Siddaramaiah has faced about the MUDA scam. Social activist TJ Abraham previously filed a complaint against him, prompting Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot to issue a show cause notice to the Chief Minister. The Governor asked Siddaramaiah to explain why he should not be prosecuted, to which the Chief Minister has already provided a detailed response. The Governor’s next steps remain a matter of public interest.
The crux of the controversy lies in the land acquisition and development process in Kesare village. In a letter dated October 21, 2021, Parvathamma wrote to the MUDA Commissioner, claiming ownership of the 3.16 acres in Survey No. 464. She stated that the land was initially notified for acquisition by MUDA in 1992 to create the Devanur third-stage layout. However, the land acquisition process was allegedly withdrawn in 1998, and an alienation order was issued in 2005. Despite this, the land was used by MUDA for slum development, including the construction of a public park and roads.
Parvathamma’s letter highlights that no compensation had been provided for the land, prompting her to request either 55 per cent of residential land in the developed layout or the return of her original land. This claim raises further questions about the legitimacy of MUDA’s acquisition and use of the land.
In 2014, Parvathamma also wrote to the Mysore DC and MUDA President, making similar requests for compensation or the return of her land. MUDA has acknowledged these letters, with official seals confirming receipt.
In a letter dated October 21, 2021, addressed to the MUDA Commissioner, Parvathamma wrote, “I am the land owner of 03 acres 16 gunte land in Survey No. 464 of Kesare village, Mysore taluk. The authority issued a final notification for land acquisition for the said land on October 31, 1992, to create Devanur’s third stage layout. The Government issued a notification on May 18, 1998, to withdraw this land from the land acquisition process, and an alienation order was issued on July 15, 2005. However, the authority has used the land alienated by the DC. 3.16 acres of land have been developed into a layout, with roads and a public park since 2001.”
In her letter, Parvathamma further stated, “Although the authority has used my land, no compensation has been given so far. Therefore, as compensation for the above land, I request 55 per cent residential land in the developed slum, which is currently available in a 50:50 ratio.”
The revelation of these letters has sparked debate over the legality and timing of the land acquisition. Parvathamma’s claim that the land was acquired by MUDA in 2001, despite her brother purchasing it in 2004, has led to speculation that the land may have been improperly acquired.
In the 2021 letter, officials were instructed to “submit in a separate file,” indicating the sensitive nature of the case. Additionally, the 2014 letter acknowledges MUDA’s seal, confirming its receipt.
The MUDA scam involves allegations of irregular land acquisition and compensation and has been a point of contention in Karnataka politics. The emergence of Parvathamma’s letters adds a new layer of complexity to the case, particularly given her relationship with Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
As the investigation into the MUDA scam continues, the contents of Parvathamma’s letters are likely to be scrutinized closely. The case raises important questions about land acquisition processes, compensation practices, and the role of government officials in such matters.
For now, the letters serve as a key piece of evidence in the ongoing probe, with potential ramifications for the state’s political and administrative circles. The outcome of the investigation could have a lasting impact on the careers of those involved and on public perceptions of land management and governance in Karnataka.
