The Special Court of People’s Representatives has reserved its order regarding a private complaint filed by Snehamayi Krishna alleging involvement in the MUDA scam against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. The court has adjourned the hearing to August 13, when an order is expected to be issued on whether to accept the private complaint for further proceedings.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Lakshmi Iyengar, representing the complainant, presented a detailed argument highlighting the alleged misuse of power by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with land denotification and allocation of prime plots.
Land Denotification and Purchase
Advocate Iyengar argued that when Siddaramaiah served as the Deputy Chief Minister (DCM), he allegedly facilitated the denotification of land on behalf of an individual who was not the rightful owner. This land, located in Devanur village, had been developed by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) before 2004, yet it was converted for other purposes.
It was further claimed that in 2004, the land was purchased from Devaraj by the brother of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, raising questions about the source of funds used for the transaction. Although the land in Devanur village still has vacant plots, a replacement plot was allegedly allocated in the more expensive Vijayanagar area.
Two Questionable Allocation of Plots
Plots were allegedly allocated on this land between 2006 and 2010 as part of the layout structures. The Chief Minister’s wife, Parvati BM, is said to have received a gift from her brother in 2010. This was followed by a period of silence until Siddaramaiah assumed the role of Chief Minister in 2014. Upon becoming Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah reportedly requested compensation despite the land’s questionable ownership.
The complainant’s counsel argued that Devaraj, the individual from whom the land was purchased, was not the rightful owner. Thus, the subsequent ownership claims by Mallikarjuna Swamy and, ultimately, Parvati BM were invalid. Despite this, a request for a replacement plot was made, which, according to Iyengar, was illegal.
Alleged Abuse of Power
The counsel contended that, under the law, the Chief Minister’s wife had no rightful claim to the 14 plots in question. Even if she were entitled, the maximum permissible allocation would be 4,800 square meters. However, it was alleged that 14 plots were illegally obtained in a high-value barangay, suggesting an abuse of power by the Chief Minister.
During the hearing, Judge Santhosh Gajanana Bhat questioned the necessity of obtaining prior permission before filing a private complaint against a sitting Chief Minister. In response, Advocate Iyengar argued that prior permission is not required for the court to order an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). She cited the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant Supreme Court judgments to support the argument that prior permission is only necessary when the court takes cognizance of the offence, not at the stage of ordering an investigation.
The arguments concluded with a focus on whether the Special Court would proceed with the private complaint, leaving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah facing significant legal scrutiny. The court’s decision on August 13 will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for handling allegations against high-ranking public officials.
