MYSURU: In a significant development, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathi, was interrogated by Lokayukta police on Friday, October 25 in connection with the controversial Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment scam. Parvathi was questioned for over two hours at an undisclosed location, marking the latest twist in a high-profile case that has raised serious questions about corruption and abuse of power at the highest levels of state government.
The MUDA site allotment case has become a political storm, with accusations of illegal land transactions involving senior politicians. An FIR has been registered naming CM Siddaramaiah as the primary accused (A1), followed by Parvathi Siddaramaiah (A2), Mallikarjunaswamy (A3), and Devaraju (A4). The case centres on allegations that Siddaramaiah’s wife unlawfully obtained 14 prime sites in Mysuru as compensation for land she allegedly did not own, sparking claims of favouritism and manipulation of MUDA’s procedures.
Parvathi Siddaramaiah was interrogated discreetly under the supervision of Lokayukta SP TJ Udesh. The secrecy surrounding her interrogation has drawn criticism from opposition leaders, who have accused the government of shielding its leaders from scrutiny. While A3 Mallikarjunaswamy and A4 Devaraju had been previously interrogated in connection with the scam, Parvathi was quietly summoned and questioned away from public view.
Sources say that Parvathi was specifically questioned about her applications to MUDA and her alleged demands for specific site allocations as compensation for land supposedly acquired by MUDA. She maintained that she had made only general compensation requests and denied any involvement of her husband or son. Officials also noted discrepancies in her signature across multiple documents, which Parvathi attributed to her infrequent signing habits.
The case pertains to the allocation of 14 prime plots worth an estimated ₹56 crore, which were allegedly granted to Parvathi Siddaramaiah in exchange for 3.16 acres of land in Kasare village, Mysuru taluk. However, it is alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over the said land, and that it was a gift from her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy, who himself acquired it from Devaraju. This irregular allotment has been dubbed the “50-50 scam,” referring to alleged profit-sharing arrangements between politicians and local authorities.
The Lokayukta police registered the FIR following a directive from a special court on September 24, just a day after the Karnataka High Court upheld the governor’s sanction for an investigation against Siddaramaiah. The case has been further complicated by the involvement of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing possible money laundering linked to the scam.
Parvathi Siddaramaiah has been accused of maintaining secrecy while returning the 14 MUDA plots, reportedly canceling the allotments discreetly. It is alleged that she personally managed the cancellation process, avoiding public appearances that could have drawn further attention to the issue. Critics argue that the secretive manner in which these cancellations were handled raises further suspicion of wrongdoing and cover-ups.
Following the High Court’s decision to uphold the investigation, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah filed an appeal challenging the ruling. The state’s Home Minister, G Parameshwara, acknowledged the appeal and stated that the government would wait for the divisional bench’s decision. This move has been interpreted as a last-ditch effort by the CM to avoid deeper scrutiny into his family’s alleged involvement in the MUDA scam.
Opposition leaders have condemned the government’s handling of the case, accusing Siddaramaiah of using his influence to manipulate the legal process. The BJP has demanded a transparent investigation and called for the immediate resignation of the Chief Minister, arguing that his continued position could affect the fairness of ongoing probes.
The Enforcement Directorate’s involvement has added a new dimension to the case, as the agency looks into possible money laundering linked to the fraudulent land allotments. The ED is expected to examine transactions between MUDA officials and other stakeholders to uncover any hidden financial arrangements that may have facilitated the scam.
The MUDA site allotment case has erupted into a major political scandal, threatening to destabilize the Siddaramaiah-led government. Critics have accused the administration of institutionalizing corruption and abusing power to enrich themselves. With the involvement of multiple agencies, including the Lokayukta and ED, there are growing demands for transparency and accountability in the investigation process.
The scandal has also highlighted deeper issues within MUDA, with allegations that the authority has become a tool for political favoritism and manipulation. The case has drawn attention to the need for systemic reforms to prevent similar instances of corruption in the future.
The Karnataka High Court’s upcoming decision on Siddaramaiah’s appeal will be crucial in determining the direction of this case. Until then, the pressure on the state government continues to mount as more details of the alleged misuse of power and resources come to light.
The MUDA case comlainent Snehamayi Krishna alleged that “There were no plots, sewage systems, or parks constructed on the disputed 3 acres and 16 guntas of land under survey number 464. Efforts are being made to portray it as a vacant area. During the inspection, only the boundaries of the land were marked. Since the land was overgrown with plants and shrubs, the park was not clearly visible. I have requested the Lokayukta in Mysuru to clear the shrubs, take photos and videos of the roads, sewage systems, and the park, and use them for the investigation,”
Snehamayi addressed the media after submitting a petition at the Mysuru Lokayukta on Friday stating, “Former Mysuru deputy Commissioner and current Raichur MP, Kumar Naik, spoke in a manner that implied the complainant lacked legal knowledge. Under what law did he allow the resale of land that had already been sold to Mallikarjuna Swamy? How was the land, which was designated as a plot, permitted to be sold as agricultural land to Mallikarjuna Swamy?” she questioned.
“Information should be gathered from the buyers of the 12 plots. During Kumar Naik’s tenure as Mysuru deputy Commissioner, he was involved in illegal land conversion (land transfer), and I have requested the Lokayukta to re-investigate Kumar Naik for this reason,” she added.
Comments