Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the Lokayukta police in connection with a case involving the alleged allotment of land by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) to the Siddhartha Vihar Trust associated with Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s family.
The order came while hearing a petition filed by complainant Vijayraghava Marathe challenging the proceedings initiated by the Special Court for Elected Representatives under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The petitioner had approached the High Court questioning the manner in which the Special Court was proceeding with the complaint after the Lokayukta police allegedly failed to take action on his complaint. The complaint had named Mallikarjun Kharge, Radhakrishna, Radhabai Kharge, Rahul Kharge, Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge and Minister M.B. Patil.
Allegations over land allotments
According to the complaint, the Siddhartha Vihar Trust was allegedly provided benefits in the allotment of government land on the grounds that it was a Scheduled Caste-run trust.
The complainant alleged that the trust received a 50 per cent concession in the allotment process. He also questioned the allotment of land in the Aerospace Park at Devanahalli, alleging that the trust did not have prior experience in aerospace or research activities. The complaint also referred to the allotment of two acres of BDA land in the BTM Layout area, allegedly at a 50 per cent subsidy.
The petitioner claimed that the land allotments had resulted in benefits being extended to the trust and raised questions over whether the prescribed rules and procedures were followed while granting the land.
The complaint further stated that the land allotted in the BTM Layout was subsequently returned after allegations surrounding the allotment emerged.The allegations, however, remain subject to investigation and adjudication.
Lokayukta police had allegedly not acted on complaint
The complainant had approached the Lokayukta police seeking an investigation into the allegations. However, according to the petition, no action was taken on the complaint. The petitioner subsequently approached the Special Court for Elected Representatives, seeking directions for a Lokayukta investigation.
The Special Court did not order a probe by the Lokayukta police. It reportedly took the view that the affidavit submitted in connection with the complaint was not in proper form.Instead, the Special Court proceeded to examine the complaint directly under Section 223 of the BNSS.
The complainant challenged this procedure before the High Court, arguing that the Special Court should have directed the Lokayukta police to conduct an investigation into the allegations.
Petitioner challenges Special Court procedure
Appearing for the petitioner, the counsel argued that the Special Court had proceeded with the matter despite the complainant seeking a formal investigation by the Lokayukta police. The petitioner contended that the alleged irregularities relating to the allotment of government land required an investigation by the competent agency.
The counsel also questioned the decision of the Special Court to proceed directly under Section 223 of the BNSS instead of directing an investigation. After hearing the submissions, the High Court ordered issuance of notice to the Lokayukta police. The notice seeks a response from the investigating agency regarding the allegations and the action, if any, taken on the complaint.
Case could lead to further scrutiny
The High Court’s latest order does not amount to a finding of wrongdoing against any of the persons named in the complaint. The allegations will have to be examined through the appropriate legal process.
The case has nevertheless assumed significance as it involves allegations concerning the allotment of government land by two major state agencies — the BDA and KIADB — to a trust associated with the Kharge family.
The petitioner’s allegations include questions over concessions, eligibility, the purpose for which the land was allotted and the procedure followed by the authorities.
The High Court’s decision to seek a response from the Lokayukta police could now bring greater clarity on whether the complaints were examined by the agency and what action was taken on them. The matter is expected to be taken up again after the Lokayukta police respond to the notice.
