MYSURU: The corruption within the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) shows no signs of abating, as more instances of fraudulent activities involving MUDA officials continue to surface. Recent developments have shed light on a particularly troubling case, further intensifying suspicions that officials within the organization are exploiting their positions for personal gain.
The latest incident revolves around the mysterious creation of a non-existent individual, allegedly used by corrupt officials to secure a replacement site under dubious circumstances.
At the heart of this scandal is the case of Abdul Wahid, a resident of Mysore whose land was reportedly seized by MUDA in 1962. The land in question, measuring 4.39 acres and located in Survey No. 21 of Belawatta village, was taken over by MUDA, leaving Wahid without his property. However, the controversy stems from the application for a replacement site made in Wahid’s name decades later.
According to documents, Abdul Wahid lost his land when he was just 8 years old. Now, at the age of 68, Wahid or someone claiming to be him has applied for the same and successfully secured a replacement site through MUDA. The glaring inconsistencies in this narrative have raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the claim, particularly considering how a child as young as 7 or 8 years old could have held land ownership records, known as RTC (Record of Rights, Tenancy, and Crops).
The case took a legal turn when a person identifying as Abdul Wahid filed a writ petition in the High Court, seeking a replacement site. During the proceedings, the presiding judge expressed skepticism over the possibility of an 8-year-old having RTC documents, prompting an order for a thorough investigation into the matter. Despite the court’s directive, both the state government and MUDA’s senior officials appeared to treat the issue with indifference.
The situation took a surprising turn when the writ petition was withdrawn following a change in the judicial bench, a move that raised further eyebrows. Subsequently, MUDA went ahead and granted a replacement plot of 55,260 square feet to Abdul Wahid on February 28 of the previous year, bypassing the unresolved doubts and questions surrounding the legitimacy of the claim.
The handling of Abdul Wahid’s case has left many unanswered questions that cast a shadow over MUDA’s operations. Chief among these is why the authorities did not conduct a rigorous investigation, despite the judge’s explicit concerns. The scenario raises suspicions of a possible cover-up, as the MUDA officials’ actions appear to disregard the fundamental principles of due process.
One of the most perplexing aspects of this case is the question of whether a person can possess RTC records at such a young age. Furthermore, if Abdul Wahid had indeed held such documents since childhood, why did he wait until the age of 68 to apply for a replacement site or compensation? These inconsistencies suggest the possibility of a fabricated identity or manipulated documents to facilitate the fraudulent acquisition of valuable land.
Adding to the intrigue are discrepancies found in Abdul Wahid’s Aadhaar card, which lists his address as a resident of Mandi Mohalla in Mysore. However, the application for the replacement site recorded his address as being associated with the Udayagiri post, a detail that appears to have gone unchecked during the verification process. The apparent failure to scrutinize such crucial information raises serious concerns about the integrity of MUDA’s procedures.
Moreover, the involvement of individuals named Ubedullah and Syed, who signed the subpoena as witnesses, has further fueled suspicions. Their connection to the case remains unclear, and questions persist regarding their role in the broader scheme of land replacement fraud.
The Abdul Wahid case is just one of many that highlight the endemic corruption within MUDA, where officials seem to operate with impunity, leveraging their positions to manipulate land transactions for personal benefit. The lack of transparency and accountability in MUDA’s dealings has eroded public trust and undermined the institution’s credibility.
For justice to be served, it is imperative that a thorough and impartial investigation be conducted into the Abdul Wahid case and other similar instances of alleged fraud. The state government must take decisive action to ensure that those responsible for such corrupt practices are held accountable, and that the rights of genuine landowners are protected.
As the public awaits answers, the Abdul Wahid case serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for reform within MUDA. Only by addressing these deep-rooted issues can the organisation hope to restore its reputation and fulfill its mandate to serve the people of Mysore with integrity and fairness.
Comments