Mysuru: Lokayukta investigators in Bengaluru have unveiled alarming evidence of misconduct involving Raichur’s current Congress MP G Kumar Nayak, who previously served as the Mysore District Magistrate. This investigation has revealed that Nayak, along with several other officials, committed gross dereliction of duty by issuing a misleading order based on a site investigation report and map prepared without an actual visit to the land in question. This land is purported to be owned by B M Mallikarjuna Swamy, the brother-in-law of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
The allegations point to serious wrongdoing, with accusations that Nayak fabricated a document regarding a road on the very land linked to Swamy. The emerging evidence suggests a systematic effort to deceive and misrepresent the conditions of the property to facilitate unauthorised actions.
The Lokayukta’s inquiry comes after a complaint was lodged by Snehamayi Krishna, who has been vocal about the alleged irregularities on social media. Approximately a year ago, Snehamayi shared documentation that purportedly showcased discrepancies in official reports regarding the land’s status. On July 24, 2024, the Organizer published a report detailing these grave allegations.
The investigation has explicitly named several officials whose negligence and malpractice contributed to this situation, including Nayak, Tahsildar Malige Shankar, Revenue Inspector Siddappaji, and Surveyor Shankarappa. All these officials reportedly failed to conduct a proper site inspection before issuing their report and were complicit in creating a fraudulent narrative about the land.
The Heart of the Matter
The land in dispute Survey No. 464 in Kasaba Hobli, Kesare village—has a convoluted history. In June 2005, a site inspection was claimed to have been conducted for converting the land from agricultural to residential use, facilitated by authorizing letters from the Mysore Taluk Tahsildar. However, the findings of this inspection have been contested, particularly regarding the existence of a road on the property, which was conveniently omitted in the report issued by Nayak and his team.
Despite the clear indications of road construction on the land, Nayak’s office labeled it as vacant, fueling the allegations of document fabrication. This was further amplified by statements from Devaraju, the seller of the land to B M Mallikarjuna Swamy, who noted that a considerable sum of Rs 25,000 was spent to release the land from acquisition processes, raising further questions about the legitimacy of the land acquisition dealings.
The Lokayukta investigation suggests a deeply-rooted problem within the local bureaucracy, especially given the nature of the corruption accusations against prominent Congress figures. The report indicated a troubling pattern of official collaboration in circumventing proper procedures. The role of senior officials, under the apparent influence of Siddaramaiah, raises critical questions about the integrity of governance in Karnataka.
Experts have pointed out that the historical context surrounding the land is also suspect. For example, the cancellation of land acquisition notifications in 1998 and subsequent development activities indicate possible collusion and manipulation of records. The lack of transparency in the interactions between officials and powerful political figures has led to a culture of impunity, where ethical breaches become commonplace.
In his social media posts, Snehamayi Krishna elaborated on these connections and called for stringency in legal action against the implicated individuals. He asserted the importance of accountability, especially for officials who are ostensibly sworn to uphold the law. Krishna emphasized that Siddaramaiah, with his background in law, should take a firm stance against these findings and ensure that those responsible are held accountable.
Evidentiary Material Exposed
The evidentiary leads secured by the Lokayukta comprise not only official documents but also anomalies such as discrepancies in document timing and the misrepresentation of signatures. For example, in a contentious order dated July 15, 2005, Nayak allegedly indicated the presentation of a contract that had not been formally executed, raising suspicions regarding the legitimacy of the bureaucratic processes at play.
Furthermore, RTI worker Krishna highlighted the significance of familial ties in the alleged corruption. By showcasing personal connections between the various parties involved, he has drawn attention to potential conflicts of interest that may have influenced the improper actions taken by the officials.
Cover-up or Incompetence?
Comments